Re: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-03

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Magnus,

Some comments on your review, from a CLUE perspective:

On 3/20/13 11:11 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> 6. Section 4.1:
>
> This section discuss the usage of the "data channels" within the SCTP
> association. My personal position is that for the moment this appears to
> be unnecessary. The most important part is the SCTP association
> establishment. Then one can discuss the general application using the
> SCTP association as whole. Examples of such are WebRTC data channel.
>
> If anyone want stream level information in SDP then I propose that this
> is handled as a extension to this signaling, not an from the start
> included functionality as we don't appear to have clear requirement for
> that.

Who is "we"?

In CLUE we expect to use this mechanism for a CLUE data channel.
And we intend to do so in pure sip-sip cases as well as webrtc-sip and 
webrtc-webrtc cases.

While webrtc-webrtc may have an independent mechanism to work out the 
channel usage, that is certainly not so for sip-sip sessions.

So I think "we" (CLUE) have a requirement to negotiate channel usage in SDP.

> 7. Section 4.2:
>
> What are the requirements behind being able to establish multiple SCTP
> association over the same DTLS connection? I am very unclear why this
> would be required, and if not really needed I would suggest keeping
> things simple.

I agree there has been no compelling need advanced for multiple SCTP 
associations over the same DTLS connection. But the fact is that SCTP 
has its own notion of port, and that needs to be dealt with one way or 
another. At a minimum this document should specify what SCTP port is to 
be used when conforming to this specification.

> 8. Section 4.3: I guess this can for the moment be removed as it appears
> to be taken care in other places, such as the RTCWEB WG data channel
> protocol proposal.

See above. That doesn't meet CLUE needs.

	Thanks,
	Paul