[Sip] Re: Issue #163: "where does SDP section live"

Colin Perkins <csp@isi.edu> Tue, 11 September 2001 01:03 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07676 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:03:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA23824; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA23792 for <sip@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from purple.nge.isi.edu ([65.114.168.32]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06723 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:25:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from purple.nge.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by purple.nge.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04344; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:25:44 -0400
Message-Id: <200109110025.UAA04344@purple.nge.isi.edu>
To: Tom-PT Taylor <taylor@nortelnetworks.com>
cc: "'sip@ietf.org'" <sip@ietf.org>, confctrl@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:48:38 EDT." <28560036253BD41191A10000F8BCBD110514FAFD@zcard00g.ca.nortel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:25:44 -0400
From: Colin Perkins <csp@isi.edu>
Subject: [Sip] Re: Issue #163: "where does SDP section live"
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org

A common document would seem to make sense, if possible. I don't think it
should be part of the SDP revision: that ties SDP to one negotiation model,
which might not be appropriate for all scenarios.

Colin




--> "Tom-PT Taylor" writes:
>I've clipped this description from Rohan Mahy's note, assuming it reflects
>Jonathan's statement: 
>
> >#163 "where does SDP section live"
> >Issues: SIP spec has an appendix with SDP usage;
> >Not really a SIP issue at all;
> >Other descriptions will come along;
> >Sync issue with SDP spec;
> >Beefiness of SIP spec already
> >Some ideas: Separate RFC, Incorporate into SDP revision, Keep it as it is
> >Proposal: Keep it as it is
>
>The implication of the decision on this issue is either that the negotiation
>model for SDP is application-specific (implication if the SDP annex stays)
>or that the negotiation model is general (implication if the annex becomes a
>separate document in MMUSIC).
>
>Megaco might be a bit different if a general document on SDP negotiation had
>been available in 1999.  As it is, we built specific support for our model
>into the Megaco protocol.
>
>My point is that we should consider what is the best approach looking
>forward.  When SDPng comes along, will we again face the necessity of
>defining how it is used with each application, or will it be possible to
>define a common view?
>
>My personal preference is for a common document.  I think it is possible,
>although it may contain different sections governing the operation of
>different functions.  For example, there may be a difference in the model
>used to reveal capabilities (a Megaco requirement), as opposed to
>negotiating a specific media flow (a requirement common to Megaco and SIP).
>
>Tom Taylor
>taylor@nortelnetworks.com
>Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490)

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip