Re: [MMUSIC] WG adoption of other WebRTC data channel usage drafts?; Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sat, 17 October 2015 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A08F1A9100 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 uw0rbF5vqJYi for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8ACA1A90FC for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.97]) by resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id WFTR1r00426dK1R01FTZDk; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:27:33 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id WFTY1r00B3Ge9ey01FTYYb; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:27:32 +0000
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1ACDF796695@FR711WXCHMBA01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <56202783.3010300@cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B45C83@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1ACDF79D867@FR711WXCHMBA01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B45FDB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <56213DD9.8080308@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B46EA0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <5621596C.3070706@alum.mit.edu> <56215EA6.2010503@omnitor.se> <CA+9kkMApRrks_aMbKTzZideXM=Y-W+tqEhWCSmJXzT+TrsE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <562268E2.8030509@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:27:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMApRrks_aMbKTzZideXM=Y-W+tqEhWCSmJXzT+TrsE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1445095653; bh=UaiqFUdb3JCgcZJH/eY4OGo1gcdJNEo0sgYhLiuZfU4=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=mxD1GCxIlTr4Cbat0XfSaWk8d15VqLZtzIkmuq1eWQpdQwV/++xoz8I7CJz6SMKve vY0GH+i8iSRRnvP1SKqgPMY1rHlAjbzlxKxpuKoyeszYyXM3jaKDVqyhHOXlLBBzVL 0KzexJhNfzdDRkNC9qtH2IKXm/wk2DolOLahSqxOsLjITzudXX3QwT3GhonxZ4kfLs stR/qXAuctcwqIksXF+ssDZdnPMOpUB8rjokxv1qQuLKSnslMisFNvOa0+6AWqcVU9 q8Kd2mNsSZ5qOBNnR4GrW25Y/YM16ZZZ9Mt3sjNlfOgzkOvfjoycb2RaAk5Y+Bwrks /3iPj/imL7mMQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/vpUwMvfPnW5fq2zNy_ZzUG5yI0U>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WG adoption of other WebRTC data channel usage drafts?; Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:27:36 -0000

On 10/16/15 4:48 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gunnar Hellström
> <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>> wrote:
>
>     In my view:
>
>     The subprotocol specifications are equally needed as the traditional
>     RTP payload specifications.
>
>     There is a need to register subprotocol identifiers with IANA, and
>     that is usually done through an RFC.
>
>
> ​Just so we're clear, you mean the sctp payload protocol identifiers?
> If that's the case the registry is here:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sctp-parameters/sctp-parameters.xhtml#sctp-parameters-25

No. Data channels are restricted to using 3 PPIDs, to distinguish DCEP 
messages from UTF8 data from binary data. They aren't exposed at all in 
some APIs.

Ratherm this is about the channel protocol name. It is best described in 
the dcep spec (draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol). This reuses the 
websocket protocol names registry 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/websocket.xhtml). And that 
registry is FCFS. So an RFC is not needed.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> and registration is listed as first come, first served. While it is
> possible that a specific item be registered, RFC 4960 says:
>
>     The upper layer, i.e., the SCTP user, SHOULD standardize any specific
>     protocol identifier with IANA if it is so desired.  The use of any
>     specific payload protocol identifier is out of the scope of SCTP.
>
> ​So there will no doubt be cases where it is not registered.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
>     SDP parameters, SCTP channel characteristics, error handling, and
>     even mapping to RTP transport for use in traditional SIP, all these
>     are natural parts of a data channel subprotocol spec. I cannot see
>     any more natural place to do this than in IETF as a RFC.  Then we
>     have it in a recognized international place that can be referenced
>     from IETF and other organizations such as 3GPP, W3C etc.
>
>     This is valid for the T.140 in data channel and at least its mapping
>     to RFC 4103. It is probably valid for most other subchannel
>     specifications that will follow.
>
>     /Gunnar
>
>
>     Den 2015-10-16 kl. 22:09, skrev Paul Kyzivat:
>
>         On 10/16/15 3:10 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>             Hi Paul,
>
>             I do agree that the data channel could be used for t.140,
>             and I support
>             the work to be done.
>
>             My point was the the work doesn't necessarily have to be
>             done in IETF,
>             does it?
>
>
>         I suppose not, if there is another place. But IIUC T.140 over
>         RTP is defined in the IETF, and the protocol work for WebRTC is
>         done in the ietf, so it seems logical to me that T.140 over data
>         channel also be done in ietf.
>
>             Or, is an RFC required for data channel usages?
>
>
>         I don't know. Probably not.
>
>              Thanks,
>              Paul
>
>             Regards,
>
>             Christer
>
>             Sent from my Windows Phone
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             From: Paul Kyzivat <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
>             <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>>
>             Sent: ‎16/‎10/‎2015 21:11
>             To: mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>             <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
>             Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WG adoption of other WebRTC data
>             channel usage
>             drafts?; Re: New Version Notification for
>             draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>             On 10/16/15 5:50 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>                 Sorry - my mistake. But, my comment applies to BFCP too.
>
>                 I see no reason why IETF should work on a T.140 draft
>                 however - unless
>                 there are lots of people who want to do it (which I doubt).
>
>
>             IIUC, WebRTC doesn't support T.140 (because it is not audio
>             or video).
>             But it could support T.140 over data channel. So that is a
>             motivation
>             for doing the work.
>
>                       Thanks,
>                       Paul
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                 Christer
>
>                 Sent from my Windows Phone
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 From: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)
>                 <mailto:albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com
>                 <mailto:albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>>
>                 Sent: ‎16/‎10/‎2015 12:43
>                 To: Christer Holmberg
>                 <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
>                 <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>; Flemming
>                 Andreasen <mailto:fandreas@cisco.com
>                 <mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>>; mmusic@ietf.org
>                 <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>                 <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
>                 Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] WG adoption of other WebRTC data
>                 channel usage
>                 drafts?; Re: New Version Notification for
>                 draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>                       Now, in THIS specific case we are talking about
>                     MSRP, so maybe it
>
>                 makes sense to publish an RFC.
>
>                 This email thread is about T.140 and BFCP, not MSRP! The
>                 MSRP draft is
>                 already adopted by the WG.
>
>                 *From:*Christer Holmberg
>                 [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
>                 <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>]
>                 *Sent:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 09:26
>                 *To:* Flemming Andreasen; Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht);
>                 mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>                 *Subject:* RE: [MMUSIC] WG adoption of other WebRTC data
>                 channel usage
>                 drafts?; Re: New Version Notification for
>                 draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 Does a new data channel usage require an RFC???
>
>                 If someone wants to specify a data channel protocol X,
>                 they should be
>                 able to do so without having to gather interest in IETF.
>
>                 Now, in THIS specific case we are talking about MSRP, so
>                 maybe it makes
>                 sense to publish an RFC.
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                 Christer
>
>                 Sent from my Windows Phone
>
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>                 *From: *Flemming Andreasen <mailto:fandreas@cisco.com
>                 <mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>>
>                 *Sent: *‎16/‎10/‎2015 01:23
>                 *To: *Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)
>                 <mailto:albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com
>                 <mailto:albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>>;
>                 mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>                 <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
>                 *Subject: *Re: [MMUSIC] WG adoption of other WebRTC data
>                 channel usage
>                 drafts?; Re: New Version Notification for
>                 draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>                 Hi Albrecht
>
>                 In order for the WG to take on additional work and
>                 specific drafts, we
>                 generally require an expressed interest and support from
>                 the WG. We
>                 haven't seen a lot of that so far on these two drafts,
>                 so you may want
>                 to try and garner some additional interest and
>                 demonstrate that on the
>                 list and/or in the upcoming meeting (let us know if you
>                 would like
>                 agenda time to discuss these).
>
>                 Thanks
>
>                 -- Flemming (as MMUSIC chair)
>
>
>                 On 10/6/15 3:47 AM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
>
>                     Dear All,
>
>                     like too remind that there are three first WebRTC
>                     data channel applications,
>                     1) MSRP based instant messaging,
>                     2) T.140 based text conversation and
>                     3) BFCP based floor control within a WebRTC
>                     conference service.
>
>                     draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel was/is the
>                     precedent for getting a common understanding about
>                     application protocol specific SDP usage (on top of
>                     the generic control of a DC).
>                     The discussion and protocol design are fairly mature
>                     in the meanwhile, hence it is time to start the work
>                     on the two other applications.
>                     We've prepared initial drafts, derived from the
>                     "MSRP draft", see:
>
>                     T.140 Text Conversation over Data Channels
>                     draft-schwarz-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>                     BFCP floor control signalling over Data Channels
>                     draft-schwarz-mmusic-bfcp-usage-data-channel-01.txt
>
>                     We'd like to request MMUSIC for adoption of these
>                     drafts.
>
>                     Regards,
>                     Albrecht
>
>
>
>                     Re: [MMUSIC] New Version Notification for
>                     draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>                     Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
>                     <Juergen.Stoetzer-Bradler@alcatel-lucent.com
>                     <mailto:Juergen.Stoetzer-Bradler@alcatel-lucent.com>
>
>                 <mailto:Juergen.Stoetzer-Bradler@alcatel-lucent.com
>                 <mailto:Juergen.Stoetzer-Bradler@alcatel-lucent.com>>>
>                 Wed, 09 September
>                 2015 14:45 UTCShow header
>
>
>                     Hello,
>
>                     Version 02 of
>                     draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel addresses
>                     Christian's comments to version 01,
>                     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg14537.html,
>                     except for the "setup" attribute related one.
>
>                     We'll come back regarding the SDP setup attribute,
>                     which can be part of an MSRP over data channel
>                     related SDP media description as media level
>                     "a=setup" attribute and/or as MSRP sub-protocol specific
>                     attribute "a=dcsa:x setup".
>
>                     Thanks,
>                     Juergen
>
>                     On 09.09.2015 16:33,internet-drafts@ietf.org
>                     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>                     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org
>                     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>                         A new version of I-D,
>                         draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>                         has been successfully submitted by Juergen
>                         Stoetzer-Bradler and posted to the
>                         IETF repository.
>
>                         Name: draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel
>                         Revision:    02
>                         Title:               MSRP over Data Channels
>                         Document date:       2015-09-09
>                         Group:               mmusic
>                         Pages:               15
>                         URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02.txt
>
>                         Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel/
>
>                         Htmlized:https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02
>
>                         Diff:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-02
>
>
>                         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
>                         endpoint).
>
>
>
>
>                         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 <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>
>                         The IETF Secretariat
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     mmusic mailing list
>                     mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>                     <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
>                     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>                     .
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 mmusic mailing list
>                 mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>                 <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 mmusic mailing list
>                 mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             mmusic mailing list
>             mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         mmusic mailing list
>         mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mmusic mailing list
>     mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>