[MMUSIC] New draft version draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-03

Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler <Juergen.Stoetzer-Bradler@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <juergen.stoetzer-bradler@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090501A8827 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id di9M9Ti6WRn0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E0041A86F5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id AB54F6B4B190D for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:13:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t6LDDqB7009167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:13:58 +0200
Received: from [149.204.68.198] (135.239.27.40) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:13:44 +0200
To: mmusic@ietf.org
From: Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler <Juergen.Stoetzer-Bradler@alcatel-lucent.com>
Message-ID: <55AE4587.6020303@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:13:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms020202080301010308080405"
X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/frbTY16w38cTXpwk1z4QiKqKpxI>
Subject: [MMUSIC] New draft version draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-03
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:14:08 -0000

Have submitted version 03 of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg.
This version solves Roni's comments 1 and 2 and 5 to 9
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg14790.html,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg14811.html).

Roni's 10th comment was about the still missing IANA registration text
for the new SDP attributes dcmap and dcsa. Have added related
section headers, but the actual text still needs to be added.

Roni's comments 3 and 4 were related to the (JaveScript) API related text parts.
Have removed most of these text parts.
However, section 5.2.2 still contains some API related text.
Before also removing this I'd like to raise a slightly broader question.

Sections 5.1 and 5.2 contain informative generic non-DCEP negotiation related text,
which could mostly be removed from the document, as this draft now exclusively
focuses on SDP offer/answer extensions.
Some parts might be moved to the related SDP offer/answer specific text in section 6.
Have added a couple of related editor note's to sections 5.1 and 5.2 indicating
which text parts I think could be completely removed and which could be moved to
section 6.

Would that be agreeable?

Alternatively, instead of completely removing some parts of the text,
such text parts could also be moved to a new informative appendix.

What would be your preference?

Thanks,
Juergen