Re: [MMUSIC] "New" style for defining SDP attributes

[Thomas Stach <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


the proposal works for me.
However, as long a we don't have definitions for ice-lite-attribute and 
the other stuff,
I can't reference it and have to keep the constructions and references 
that I currently have.

Regards
Thomas

On 2018-05-14 20:02, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Note that I changed the subject line here. My intent was to start a different discussion that >isn't specifically related to trickle-ice-sip.
>> The intent instead is to discuss if we should change 4566bis to be more explicit about how >to define attributes.
> Sure.
>
> But, at the same time we'd like to move trickle-ice-sip forward, and I think my suggestion below allows us to do that while any possible change to 4566bis is discussed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> On 5/13/18 4:47 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My suggestion would be to simply reference the syntax. Something like:
>>
>> trickle-ice-sdpfrag =   session-level-fields
>>                                         pseudo-media-descriptions
>> session-level-fields = bundle-group-attribute CRLF          \
>>                                         ice-lite-attribute CRLF                      \
>>                                         ice-pwd-attribute CRLF                     \
>>                                         ice-ufrag-attribute CRLF                    \
>>                                         ice-options-attribute CRLF                \
>>                                         ice-pacing-attribute CRLF                  \
>>                                         end-of-candidates-attribute CRLF   \
>>                                         extension-attribute-fields
>>
>> The attribute fields follow the generic syntax for SDP attributes [RFCXXXX]. The list below reference the specific syntax for each attribute field.
>>
>> ice-lite-attribute              ; as ice-lite defined in [RFCXXXX]
>> ice-pwd-attribute            ...
>> ice-ufrag-attribute           ...
>> ice-pacing-attribute         ...
>> ice-options-attribute       ....
>>
>> Then we don't need to worry about "new" and "old" in this draft. We simply define the high-level syntax for the sdpfrag message body, and reference the appropriate specifications for the attributes etc.
>>
>> In addition, I think it would be useful to say that in order to use an extension attribute, there needs to be a specification for how that attribute is used within a sdpfrag message body. Otherwise someone could include any SDP attribute just like that.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul
>> Kyzivat
>> Sent: 12 May 2018 19:41
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [MMUSIC] "New" style for defining SDP attributes
>>
>> On 5/10/18 12:59 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>
>>> That's a bad example since a=bundle-only doesn't have a value.
>>>
>>> A better example is the tls-id attribute, defined in Section 4 of
>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-32.txt.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd rather prefer ( just personal preference ) the style of
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14, where the
>>> registration in section 11 refers to the grammar in section 10.
>>>
>>> The ABNF is not according to the new style.
>>>
>>> And, just to clarify, my comments are not based on my personal
>>> preference, but on my understanding of how SDP attributes are to be
>>> defined nowadays.
>> I've been finding that the "new" style that I have been trying to get institutionalized isn't well enough specified. I'm thinking that we need to firm it up, and preferably get that written down in 4566bis.
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>