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

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 02 October 2014 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474D91A6F90 for <>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 05:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55CLtSQJyfsP for <>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 05:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099E91A6EF1 for <>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 05:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79da6d0000008c7-01-542d421d69e6
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 59.CB.02247.D124D245; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:16:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:16:29 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question
Thread-Index: AQHP3Kfo2bDak4IaK0OoRO9p0kjlCJwZfrEAgAE5WgCAAHLDgIAAmB4AgAAoVgCAAM64IA==
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:16:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja6ck26Iwb9njBZTlz9msVix4QCr A5PH3/cfmDyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXRft2kYBd/xebzn9kbGOfwdDFyckgImEgs OtXHCGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgKKPEuYezGSGcxYwSrxtnsXQxcnCwCVhIdP/TBmkQEfCVePb4 NhuILSzgI/Hn5EN2mPiq3quMEHaYxNb/58FsFgEViYdnVzKD2LxANZ1zpzNDzH/KKLHy6lp2 kPmcAjoSK04og9QwAh30/dQaJhCbWUBc4taT+UwQhwpILNlznhnCFpV4+fgfK0irhICSxLSt aRDlOhILdn9ig7C1JZYtfA21VlDi5MwnLBMYRWchmToLScssJC2zkLQsYGRZxShanFpcnJtu ZKSXWpSZXFycn6eXl1qyiREYIwe3/LbawXjwueMhRgEORiUe3gUbdUKEWBPLiitzDzFKc7Ao ifMuPDcvWEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVAOjzvkJG9r1lO94nfCbsuLup+CKLUw5 +S/jVxRvfBhUGvGR/4we57LLE5eXSBgdeiJ//cJP9SUduwpn/mraeK/Kqe66v7p0y8HKO6zb lsnkRiy7I6y0nOeGLzNTh00+V62n3PMHwh6dTnXCD647vLYWEk3JC7vbsvqeB6v+Psudj/r/ 3nzpuGyZEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAq8nLInICAAA=
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:16:42 -0000


>>> The association-usage is describing how the association as a whole, 
>>> including all of the streams, is used/managed.
>>> It doesn't provide a means to separately describe how individual 
>>> streams within it are to be used. If that is to be done in SDP then 
>>>> something like draft-ejzak... would be required.
>> [CNG] My comments on this are in the context of the note in cl.10 of 
>> the
>> draft: "[Note] TBD whether a new registry is necessary to register the 
>> different possible "association-usage" values."
> Well, the alternatives to establishing a new registry are:
> - use an existing registry
>- define all the values directly in the draft.
>   (This will then require a revision to define new ones.)

I think we should have a registry (I don't care whether it's new, or an existing one).

> I don't see how we could use an existing one, since the semantics of what are being defined are entirely 
> new. (The websocket protocol registry isn't right for this. It defines a *protocols* that run over a websocket, or 
> at least something similar in nature to a websocket. What we are defining here isn't a protocol in the same sense - it is a
> *convention* for how to use an SCTP association including the many streams it contains. Each of those streams may have its 
> own protocol.)

I agree with that.

Then, IF someone e.g. would like to run RTP over SCTP, I guess they would need a new m= line protocol value. " DTLS/SCTP/RTP/AVP", or something like that...

> We could live without any registry *if* we think there is very low likelihood of needing to define new values. But I think it is already clear that is a bad assumption.

Let's also keep in mind that, while we have been discussing mostly "DTLS/SCTP", the draft also defines "SCTP" and "SCTP/DTLS". Hopefully we could use a single registry for all of them...