Re: [MEDIACTRL] Control Framework SDP Review - Issue 1

[Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo at meetecho.com>]

Ok for me as well, as it also removes the ambiguity we reported
in Minneapolis, the one related to the '*' as format in the negotiation
(which was clarified anyway).

L.


On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:09:59 +0000
"McGlashan, Scott" <scott.mcglashan at hp.com> wrote:

> Seems a reasonable change to me. 
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mediactrl-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mediactrl-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Boulton
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:53
> To: mediactrl at ietf.org
> Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Control Framework SDP Review - Issue 1
> 
> Jonathan Lennox has kindly provided expert SDP review for the Media Control Channel Framework document.  This is the first in a series of emails intended to address the points raised.  At this final stage your input is extremely important.
> 
> 
> My first comment is on the use of the values "TCP/CFW", "TCP/TLS/CFW", "SCTP/CFW" and "SCTP/TLS/CFW" for the SDP <proto> field, with a "fmt"
> field of "*".  A more usual use of the proto field would be to use the existing proto fields "TCP", "TCP/TLS", "SCTP", or "SCTP/DTLS", and then (after defining "application/cfw" as a media type) use "cfw" as the <fmt> field.
> 
> Thus, instead of having
> 
> m=application 7575 TCP/CFW *
> 
> you'd have
> 
> m=application 7575 TCP cfw
> 
> This has the advantage of leveraging other existing work in SDP, e.g.
> you would get ICE-TCP "for free" once it's finished.
> 
> 
> To be sure, there would be some disadvantages of this.
> 
> Notably, "SCTP" and "SCTP/DTLS" are still only defined in an individual I-D, and there's been only limited attention paid to it in the MMUSIC community.  On the other hand, if Mediactrl has the expertise to understand how SCTP should work in a comedia context, it'd probably be better to let this be available to everything that would want to use it, rather than just CFW.
> 
> [Chris] I agreed that the proposed change is more elegant and if it means that we get ICE-TCP for free then its a bonus.  It is  the recommendation of the authors that this change is made to the draft.  Any comments or objections?
> 
> --
> Chris Boulton
> CTO & Co-founder
> NS-Technologies <http://www.ns-technologies.com>
> m: +44.7876.476681
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
> 


-- 
Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo at meetecho.com>