Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP "alt-ports" are not mentioned in the RFC.

Sean Sheedy <Sean.Sheedy@arrisi.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sean.sheedy@arrisi.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734AA11E8138 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xii-coLcSzJo for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arrisi.com (ironmail2.arrisi.com [216.234.147.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9593121F8EA7 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([10.2.131.252]) by ironmail2.arrisi.com with ESMTP with TLS id CNFSXF1.55655737; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:21:09 -0400
Received: from CHIEXCAS3.ARRS.ARRISI.com (10.6.200.13) by ATLOWA1.ARRS.ARRISI.com (10.2.131.252) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:21:09 -0400
Received: from sean-netbook.osioda.org (10.6.159.6) by CHIEXCAS3.ARRS.ARRISI.com (10.6.200.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:21:08 -0500
Message-ID: <514206FF.3060407@arrisi.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:21:03 -0400
From: Sean Sheedy <Sean.Sheedy@arrisi.com>
Organization: ARRIS, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130219 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <CA+TAfnm2p_TtF=x2_jm+YR_NVk94gBDYnKtQcy13307-YmiZQw@mail.gmail.com> <50CEE45A.3000502@alvestrand.no> <50CEE66F.8020902@ericsson.com> <E0C7EA45-D8A2-477C-839A-B64369794262@live555.com> <5140F428.2040101@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <5140F428.2040101@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.6.159.6]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP "alt-ports" are not mentioned in the RFC.
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:21:25 -0000

I agree with this solution.  A couple of wording nits (interspersed):

On 03/13/2013 05:48 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> WG,
>
> I hereby proposes the following text
>
> In addition to the registered default ports, i.e. 554 (rtsp) and 322
> (rtsps), there are an alternative port 8554 registered. This port may
   (rtsps), an alternate port 8554 is registered.  Using this registered 
port

> provide some benefits from non-registered ports if a RTSP server is
provides some benefits over non-registered ...

> unable to use the default port. The benefits may include pre-configured
> security policies as well as classifiers in network monitoring tools.
>
> to be added in Section 10.2 after the first paragraph. Please comment if
> you see issues with this or thinks it is fine.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> On 2012-12-17 22:17, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> (Grumple... I wish this mailing list were set up so that replies went to
>> the mailing list by default.  Resending to the whole mailing list
>> instead of just Magnus.)
>>
>>> The question is if this port number has any benefit at all.
>> Yes it does.  If a RTSP server cannot use port 554 (most likely because
>> it is running on a Unix system, but not as 'root'), then it can try
>> using port 8554 instead.  (FWIW, our RTSP server implementation - widely
>> used on the Internet - does this.)  As you noted, if a server uses port
>> 8554 (or any port other than 554), then this port number will need to be
>> included in the"rtsp://"  URLs that clients use.  But it's beneficial to
>> know - e.g., if you're managing a network's 'security' policy - that
>> RTSP will likely be used on either port 554 or port 8554 (rather than
>> either port 554 or some unspecified other port number).  Similarly, it's
>> useful for network monitoring tools to know that traffic on port 8554 is
>> likely to be RTSP.
>>
>


-- 
~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--
Sean Sheedy
Staff System Software Engineer, Media and Communications Systems
Sean.Sheedy@arrisi.com  | 503-495-9454 (Phone)
~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--