Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-22

["Y.J. Gu" <guyingjie at huawei.com>]

Hi all,
According to the discussion in the mailing list, there exist some confusions
on proxy and CSeq. I conclude the confusions as below. Pls feel free to
correct my understanding.

1.  How Cseq series should be organized on proxy when the proxy aggregates
several RTSP sessions. Magnus has answered this question and I suggest to
make the text in Section 16.19 clearer. 

2.  Is Cseq a good way to matching responses to requests if the requests are
pipelined? I have gave an implementation and explains that Cseq could work
but relies on the TCP connection in some case. Pls refer to my post in
2009-9-10. I think, as a protocol, RTSP should not bind tightly to any
transport protocol. 


So I suggest that we expand on the proxies charter. How about adding a
subsection 17.2 to discuss Proxy aggregating multiple RTSP sessions and give
another optional solution other than Cseq. Cseq is useful in some cases, but
might there be an easier and clearer one that can also achieve the goal? My
gut feeling is that a local identifier, generated by proxy and included
without change in both request and response, may help proxy match
requests&responses. Proxies assign a local identifier to each new session.
Cseq can be used as well for any intention rather than matching R/r. 



Regards

Yingjie Gu

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:mmusic-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Ott
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:19 AM
> To: mmusic at ietf.org
> Cc: Magnus Westerlund; Jean-Francois Mule; Martin Stiemerling
> Subject: [MMUSIC] WGLC: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-22
> 
> Folks,
> 
> as agreed in Stockholm, we are issuing working group last 
> call on the revised RTSP spec, 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-22 heading for Proposed Standard.
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-22)
> 
> The WGLC will expire in four weeks, on 19 Oct 2009.
> 
> We know that this is a long spec, the more important is it to 
> receive thorough review by the community.  While we have 
> three volunteer reviewers (thanks again!), we urge everyone 
> who cares to provide detailed feedback.
> 
> Please review the document and post your comments to the 
> MMUSIC list and/or the authors.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joerg
> 
> MMUSIC co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic