Re: [MMUSIC] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-22

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

What about:

“…media packets in the any previously established DTLS association and…”

That covers both the currently established and already closed associations.

Regards,

Christer


From: Roman Shpount [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 28 March 2017 02:58
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; General Area Review Team <[e-mail]>; IETF MMUSIC WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-22

Hi All,


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>Regarding the following in section 5.1:
>
>    When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
>    new DTLS association, it needs to make sure that media packets in the
>    existing DTLS association and new DTLS association can be de-
>    multiplexed.
>
>This text presumes there is an existing association. To explicitly cover the case where there is not, I suggest the following:
>
>    When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
>    new DTLS association to replace an existing association, it needs to
>    ensure that media packets in the existing DTLS association and new
>    DTLS association can be de-multiplexed.

I could do that. Or, I could use say "make sure that media packets in *any* existing DTLS association"

If we are nitpicking we need to define what "existing" DTLS association means here. In this particular case this means any DTLS association for which it still possible to receive packets. This includes currently established DTLS associations as well as any DTLS association which were closed but can still receive packets due to network transmission delays.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount