IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-14.txt

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 19 May 2014 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9F91A032F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 02:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 B3iCsF_STZGj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 02:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 059A01A0314 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 02:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (port=55311 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1WmKMC-00046q-Am; Mon, 19 May 2014 10:59:44 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17D9A382@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:59:39 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <34C2927B-D426-4115-8B12-C88F301F70BD@csperkins.org>
References: <20140516113400.20381.24325.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5375F8A4.7040901@ericsson.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17D9A382@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/j7OUcNl4OuI6x2raIUecHozi_kU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-14.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:59:50 -0000

On 19 May 2014, at 01:11, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
> Looking through the updates and it is looking good I have a couple of minor comments.
> 
> In sections 4.5 and 4.6 the text around the use of SDP has been cleaned up but now both sections state a MUST requirement against signaling if SDP is used.  For example section 4.5 states "If SDP is used for signalling, this negotiation MUST use the attributes defined in [RFC5761]".  Whilst it makes sense to implement it this way probably the RTP usage document should not contain "MUST" level requirements on how signaling is implemented.
> 
> Maybe this is really something for the API considerations as if SDP is used at the API then we could say this is how it MUST be implemented.

I don’t see this as a problem. Many RTP-related specification mandate particular SDP attributes if SDP signalling is used. 

> Type on section 6 "However, they generally some add overhead" -> "However,they generally add some overhead".

Fixed, thanks.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status