Re: [MEDIACTRL] Control Framework SDP Review - Issue 2

[Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo at meetecho.com>]

I'm ok with the change.

L.


On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:10:47 +0000
"McGlashan, Scott" <scott.mcglashan at hp.com> wrote:

> No objections from me.
> 
> Thanks for these clarifications!
> 
> 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 13:07
> To: mediactrl at ietf.org
> Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Control Framework SDP Review - Issue 2
> 
> Issue 2:
> 
> Another question I have relates to SDP Offer/Answer.  It looks like the intention is that the CFW session last exactly the length of the SIP INVITE dialog usage (note that this terminology [from RFC 5057] should probably be used rather than "SIP dialog").
> 
> [Chris] We will align terminology with RFC 5057.
> 
> Does this mean that it is
> forbidden, despite offer/answer semantics, to add or remove a cfw
> session in a SIP re-INVITE?   If so, this should probably be stated
> explicitly.
> 
> [Chris] This is a really good point.  Your are correct that linking the cfw session does then imply that one, and only one cfw session must exist in the SDP during the lifetime of that SIP INVITE dialog.  Are there any objections for adding explicit text calling this out?
> 
> --
> 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>