Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question

On 10/2/14 7:59 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Keep in mind that the purpose of draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg is NOT to negotiate the usage of the SCTP association.
>
> It is assumed that the usage of the SCTP association is data channel, and the draft defines a mechanism to negotiate data channels on that SCTP association.

The purpose is to negotiate the use of channels, which is almost the 
same as negotiating the use of individual SCTP streams within an SCTP 
association.

The reason it was tied to data channels was so that it would be usable 
from webrtc browser apps.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 2. lokakuuta 2014 4:37
> To: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question
>
> On 10/1/14 7:57 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>> What is the status of the draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-00?
>
> I don't know the status. The thought Keith Drage had indicated that he was picking up responsibility for it.
>
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
>
>> It has expired and is based on the old SDP SCTP syntax. Particularly
>> the example in cl.4:
>>
>>      m=application 54111 DTLS/SCTP 5000 5001 5002
>>      c=IN IP4 79.97.215.79
>>      a=sctpmap:5000 webrtc-datachannel
>>      a=sctpmap:5001 bfcp
>>      a=sctpmap:5002 t38
>>
>> Wouldn't apply if we're saying to use multiple m-lines.
>>
>> I guess cl.5.1.1.3 would use the same Websocket subprotocol name
>> registry as data channel does?
>>
>> Regards, Christian
>>
>> On 2/10/2014 12:14 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> On 10/1/14 3:44 AM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>>
>>>>> <Sal>
>>>>> there have been several discussion about the ability to have more
>>>>> than one usage of the SCTP association, and has been agreed not to
>>>>> allow it.
>>>>> So each 'm' line describes a single SCTP association;  each
>>>>> association has only one single specify usage.
>>>>> </Sal>
>>>>
>>>> [CNG] So how would I specify in SDP a scenario where BFCP uses a
>>>> DTLS/SCTP association and MSRP uses a DTLS/SCTP association where
>>>> they both use the same DTLS connection? Are these to be separate m-lines?
>>>
>>> To have two different SCTP associations over the same DTLS
>>> connection, they would have to be distinguished by sctp-port. To
>>> achieve that you could write two m-lines. They would share the same
>>> ip address and port, and would have different "a=sctp-port" lines.
>>> Then they would have to be bundled.
>>>
>>> Doing that would require extending the definition of bundle to cover
>>> that case. (There is no *technical* problem in doing this.)
>>>
>>> OTOH, in principle they don't need their own SCTP association. AFAIK
>>> they each only use one sctp stream-pair (channel). If they could
>>> agree on how to choose channels then they could share an SCTP association.
>>> That is where draft-ejzak... comes in.
>>>
>>>      Thanks,
>>>      Paul
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>