Re: [MMUSIC] FW: I-D Action:draft-stiemerling-rtsp-announce-01.txt

[Joe Pallas <pallas at cs.stanford.edu>]

On Mar 6, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Ganesan Sam-W00184 wrote:

> One of the questions that come to mind is the following
>
> 1.  RTSP specifically in both 1.0 and 2.0 disavow the notion of a
> persistent connection.

I don't know what leads you to that conclusion.  Certainly it can't  
be the text in section 10.2 of rfc2326bis that says, "A persistent  
connection MAY be used for all transactions between the server and  
client, including messages for multiple RTSP sessions.  However a  
persistent connection MAY also be closed after a few message exchanges."

Persistent connections are clearly allowed, and I think any  
reasonable person would say they are preferred if asynchronous server  
messages like ANNOUNCE (or whatever it might be called) are to be used.

> In one particular implementation where we tried not to have persistent
> connections, we actually ended up having a RTSP listener on the client
> for a call back by the server for asynch notifications

Just when you thought the NAT problem couldn't get any worse ....  I  
would strongly oppose an approach that requires the server to be able  
to make a TCP connection to the client.  The difficulties in getting  
that to work through a firewall are overwhelming.

joe

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic