Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11.txt

Jose M Recio <jose@ch3m4.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jose@ch3m4.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 638A51201E7 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 06:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ch3m4.com header.b=O3mTnpAE; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=g3m4iB6h
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEKcK3G6qoiu for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 06:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF9D8120159 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E676B21EC3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Jul 2019 09:23:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ch3m4.com; h= subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=P EqBAckIanx/3b0MFrpttaO0PeOXB1YP9Yf9mjPqzwM=; b=O3mTnpAE+s0CatZEw RAEJ+VQZjZHeXE+v9dl1Jp+90brLPmbQH02L6OOrT5fcdKe6PXk8A3hXWro8j7qw u/7tgSnEYvQTAqza6IvhnjpCixa4aZbRloL0Ga7dKLmk9KcK3UTaXUA7lBu/kK8u VlS4eHUgtdNlD7dvS8APinj1Ze1YTnGmN4NaG8nFOIg+ZiQQZIUjGBIDyr0G0RKB OMax2BFfJqvdqyih/X+Tbz9TdY9On+JNn1jKWmy4VionZBJLIXLoASI96cwjcSCM haAKOMMS7P4aVJTawR27M1eCoUJD13zRf/6L8NQ4hwKPa9Rj+3dnjb0hTeyjbvmr F4r7A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=PEqBAckIanx/3b0MFrpttaO0PeOXB1YP9Yf9mjPqz wM=; b=g3m4iB6hY5IqBqO1I7tY5UGdGPBiSSqUbFD9bSL68xIRKJmyTN5hWlLFV AYf0SfBa1iatNTqFGJHoeYBlRCkLNeRyxgZPtOdmVplLNgjI0fGJ+wAIm6eXlA0U mU+3rfK17vAJnYUfAKIKa4aUfGYqX0Fzbo6CflU1Xnfd0ZnbW9xua2sZMMR0M6PZ FLyd5BKGBjPOPNtGynuFVmXZW+xlJpfJwxsAAnF3WmVUp1qxCurESiXFFJJ6x+A4 G7UzBI0ZsEzYPmx7TKDkXdABp4OgL8fdzPtjmRfTpZsUJuc5mV+CoWmdunyDD8Hr Bg3/XnTWRzve+VqwC92MgSq4BEr6g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:SpUkXVHsKUp-epvZnvboYxIkwhkjTt1u72ZFz-Y3NPZtvyv1ffMvGw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrgedvgdeijecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthejre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomheplfhoshgvucfoucftvggtihhouceojhhoshgvsegthhefmheg rdgtohhmqeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeeiiedrleeirddvtd egrddugeejnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehjohhsvgestghhfehmgedrtgho mhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:SpUkXc-jy-o-gKzJWivXWSxhI5ltvvlMGSJ02ixGw0rewJbZuwBxQQ> <xmx:SpUkXWpnzszlq4X-17G2QQCsOWNSLRdutp1pJE7UI4vXmoRfGuPDEQ> <xmx:SpUkXcY3CZYLrYlaJoGzElcj7zZ6aSuLy-GWZ0ZRXBDljQjLcGhLZg> <xmx:SpUkXaDiLbE0-PNS-ouP3lmMQnHtPJjAQlvez5tzCpO-GR0XIw_EQg>
Received: from [192.168.1.187] (unknown [66.96.204.147]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F1FC280060 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <155944930400.24112.11116803058885166596@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM0PR07MB51543ED462D47DE84633F66EFFF10@AM0PR07MB5154.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Jose M Recio <jose@ch3m4.com>
Message-ID: <7e1be36f-0a50-e16a-9ee2-ee9d00c37066@ch3m4.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:23:19 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB51543ED462D47DE84633F66EFFF10@AM0PR07MB5154.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/sOsZQikc1qHWvXAX1KygA1K117g>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11.txt
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:23:32 -0000

On 9/7/19 10:57 AM, Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US/Naperville) wrote:
> Do we need to make any further clarifications for the references to CEMA?
> Section 5.1.1.2 has a sentence that is a little awkward, but seems to be saying the CEMA is out of scope.

[JM] Draft covers either direct connection to an endpoint or direct 
connection to a gateway. As middleboxes are out of scope in the 
connection using data channel, then CEMA is out of scope. This short 
explanation currently appears as justification for saying that CEMA is 
out of scope. I can remove the explanation and just state that CEMA is 
out of scope.

> But in section 6 for gateway function it mentions CEMA can be used.

[JM] Draft supports gateways providing transport level interworking 
between MSRP endpoints using different transport protocols. CEMA can't 
be used towards the endpoints using data channel transport, but the GW 
could use CEMA to interwork with endpoints using other protocols.

For example, if the GW is implemented on an SBC, it can use CEMA towars 
the inside network, using a non-dc transport. But not towards endpoints 
using data channel transport.

> My understanding is I think section 6 suggests to use CEMA equivalent procedures without CEMA attributes!

[JM] GW can use CEMA with endpoints using non-dc transports. This can be 
removed, but I think it would make the GW transport interwork option too 
restrictive. The B2BUA GW would not be affected.

> Also, in section 6 should we add a further statement that the gateway assumes one MSRP data channel instance and one sub-protocol per SIP dialog as RCS mandates that a single SIP session/dialog has only one MSRP m= line?
>
[JM] I agree for RCS should be like that. Would mandating this restrict 
applicability for other applications?

> Thanks
> Raju
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:22 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control WG of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : MSRP over Data Channels
>          Authors         : Keith Drage
>                            Maridi R. Makaraju (Raju)
>                            Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
>                            Richard Ejzak
>                            Jerome Marcon
>                            Jose M. Recio
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11.txt
> 	Pages           : 19
> 	Date            : 2019-06-01
>
> Abstract:
>     This document specifies how the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
>     can be instantiated as a data channel sub-protocol, using the SDP
>     offer/answer exchange-based generic data channel negotiation
>     framework.  Two network configurations are documented: a WebRTC end-
>     to-end configuration (connecting two MSRP over data channel
>     endpoints), and a gateway configuration (connecting an MSRP over data
>     channel endpoint with an MSRP over TCP or TLS endpoint).
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-11
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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