Re: [MMUSIC] Transport tags

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Now sure I follow: Where TCP with DTLS for BFCP defined? Doesn’t TCP based BFCP run over TLS?

That is also what is used in RFC 4583.

As Roman has indicated, TCP/BFCP and TLS/BFCP won’t work on ICE. But, if you want to fix, don’t you then have to do more than just change the m- proto value? Don’t you have to define usage of the framing mechanism?

Regards,

Christer

From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 12 January 2017 17:52
To: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>; Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Transport tags

Works for me.

Cheers,
Charles

From: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 4:33 PM
To: Charles Eckel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Transport tags

I guess BFCP will need TCP/DTLS/BFCP added to the list.

Should we correct draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp draft to match and change UDP/DTLS/SCTP to UDP/TLS/SCTP?

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Here is what we have for BFCP in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-16#section-13:

                       +--------------+------------+
                       | Value        | Reference  |
                       +--------------+------------+
                       | TCP/BFCP     | [RFC XXXX] |
                       | TCP/TLS/BFCP | [RFC XXXX] |
                       | UDP/BFCP     | [RFC XXXX] |
                       | UDP/TLS/BFCP | [RFC XXXX] |
                       +--------------+------------+

Cheers,
Charles

From: mmusic <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Roman Shpount <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 1:01 PM
To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Transport tags

What should we use for the new protocols that we are defining?

Should it be UDP/TLS/SCTP or UDP/DTLS/SCTP?
Should it be UDP/TLS/BFCP or UDP/DTLS/BFCP?

I would like to see some consistency here.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Den 2017-01-10 kl. 19:08, skrev Roman Shpount:
P.S. In the quoted text someone mentioned "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF", should it
be "UDP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF"?

No, actually UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF is what is registered for DTLS-SRTP over UDP with RTP SAVPF profile. See [RFC5764]. The "UDP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF" is not registered.

So the alternatives for the dependency of default candidate protocol type in your proposal would be:

UDP: "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF"
TCP: "TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF"


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]<tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]<tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------