From: ext Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg at ericsson.com]
Sent: 26 September, 2008 14:49
To: Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-D/Helsinki); mmusic at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Progressing draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-cs-01Hi,In the generic description part, I think it would be good to describe the reason why the existing SDP p= parameter can't be used.Regards,Christer
From: mmusic-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simo.Veikkolainen at nokia.com
Sent: 25. syyskuuta 2008 11:01
To: mmusic at ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] Progressing draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-cs-01Hi,
We presented http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-cs-01 at the last MMUSIC meeting in Dublin. Based on the comments we got there, it seemed that1) Some middleboxes may get confused by the new "PSTN" nettype-value in the c= line. Also, defining a new connection capability attribute ("ccap") in the context of SDP capability negotiation framework may be problematic from middlebox point of view.
2) The draft should be split in two, one containing the genric description of circuit-switched streams in SDP, and the other describing the connection capability attribute.
We have had some offline discussions regarding these comments, and came to the conclusion that splitting the draft (issue 2) makes sense. The generic description of circuit-switched streams in SDP can be used without the connection capability definition.
For issue 1), we could not really find any concrete actions to take.
So, the proposal is now to split the draft into two, but keep the technical content unchanged.
How do folks feel with this?
Best regards,
Simo Veikkolainen
_______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic