Re: [Simple] COMEDIA vs MSRP Relays: Shared Connections

["Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>]

>>So, for session establishment, there is currently no difference 
>>between ACM and 4975 - if there is a TCP connection to a specific 
>>ACM currently specifies the usage of a=connection for session 
>>modifications, in accordance with comedia.
>>
>>So, IF we a=connection to work with relays, I guess we would need to 
>>provide the information to the relay inside the MSRP message.
>
>I'm not sure I follow--what would you conceptually be telling the
relay?

You would be telling that a session modification has occurred (the
remote address hasn't changed), and whether the relay can continue to
use the existing TCP connection for the session, or whether it should
create a new one.

Ie the client would tell the relay exactly what the client was told in
the session modification SDP.

Regards,

Christer


>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: simple-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:simple-bounces at ietf.org] On 
>>>> Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>>>>
>>>> How does the COMEDIA negotiation interact with the TCP-connection- 
>>>> sharing features of MSRP? We negotiate sessions in the SDP offer/ 
>>>> answer, not connections per se. COMEDIA implicitly assumes a one-
>>>> to-
>
>>>> one correspondence between these, but MSRP explicitly allows 
>>>> multiple sessions to use the same TCP connection.
>>>>
>>>> I can see two approaches. One would be that the COMEDIA attributes 
>>>> are only relevant if you have to create a new connection. If a 
>>>> reusable connection already exists, you just use it. Alternatively,

>>>> we could state that a connection is only reuseable if it's 
>>>> direction
>
>>>> matches the COMEDIA attributes, and if devices wanted to reuse an 
>>>> existing connection, they would either omit COMEDIA entirely, or 
>>>> choose COMEDIA attributes that match the connection.
>>>>
>>>> Neither of those approaches seems obviously wrong to me. I suspect 
>>>> there may be some traps here, though--we should analyze this pretty

>>>> closely.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Simple mailing list
>>>> Simple at ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simple mailing list
>> Simple at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple