Skip to main content

Indicating Exclusive Support of RTP and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-05-18
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-04-20
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-03-16
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2019-08-16
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2019-08-16
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2019-08-15
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT
2019-08-15
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2018-06-18
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT
2018-06-18
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2017-05-05
12 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-12.txt
2017-05-05
12 (System) New version approved
2017-05-05
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg
2017-05-05
12 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2017-02-17
11 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-11.txt
2017-02-17
11 (System) New version approved
2017-02-17
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Christer Holmberg"
2017-02-17
11 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2016-08-11
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-08-11
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2016-08-10
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-08-09
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2016-08-09
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-08-09
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-08-09
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-08-09
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2016-08-09
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-08-09
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-08-08
10 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-08-08
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-08-08
10 Christer Holmberg IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-08-08
10 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-10.txt
2016-08-04
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-08-04
09 Joel Jaeggli
2016-08-04
09 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-08-03
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-08-03
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-08-03
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In Section 3:

  The mux category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] for the 'rtcp-
  mux-only' attribute is 'IDENTICAL', which means that the attribute, …
[Ballot comment]
In Section 3:

  The mux category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] for the 'rtcp-
  mux-only' attribute is 'IDENTICAL', which means that the attribute,
  if used within a BUNDLE group
  [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], must be associated with all
  multiplexed RTP-based media descriptions within the BUNDLE group.

This sounds pretty normative, so I think the following 2 references should be Normative:

  [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
              Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
              Multiplexing", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-12
              (work in progress), January 2016.

  [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
              Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
              negotiation-31 (work in progress), June 2016.
2016-08-03
09 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-08-02
09 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-08-02
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-08-02
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-08-02
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-08-02
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-08-02
09 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-08-01
09 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-01
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-07-25
09 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Quick question:
My initial understanding was that newer systems usually support RTP/RTCP multiplexing, while older systems that do not support RTP/RTCP multiplexing will …
[Ballot comment]
Quick question:
My initial understanding was that newer systems usually support RTP/RTCP multiplexing, while older systems that do not support RTP/RTCP multiplexing will also not be able to understand this new attribut.  So I guess that's not the use case. That means the use case if for newer system that do know about  RTP/RTCP multiplexing as well as the 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute but don't support it for some reason. What are these reasons? Maybe you can provide some more background about the intended usage here!

Minor:
Some sentences are a little hard to pharse as they are quite long, e.g.

OLD:
"When an offerer sends the initial offer, if the offerer wants to
  indicate exclusive RTP/RTCP multiplexing for RTP-based media, the
  offerer MUST associate an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute with the
  associated SDP media description ("m=" line)."

MAYBE:
"If the offerer wants to
  indicate exclusive RTP/RTCP multiplexing for RTP-based media, the
  offerer MUST send the initial offer with an associated SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute and the
  associated SDP media description ("m=" line)."
2016-07-25
09 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-07-18
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-07-18
09 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-08-04
2016-07-18
09 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-07-18
09 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2016-07-18
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-07-18
09 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2016-07-18
09 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-07-18
09 Christer Holmberg IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-07-18
09 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-09.txt
2016-07-14
08 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2016-07-14
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly.
2016-07-11
08 Francis Dupont Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2016-07-11
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tim Wicinski.
2016-07-08
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-07-01
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-01
08 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there is a single action that needs to be completed.

In the att-field (media level only) subregistry of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/

a single, new attribute is to be registered as follows:

Type: att-field (media level only)
SDP Name: rtcp-mux-only
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-06-30
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2016-06-30
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2016-06-30
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2016-06-30
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2016-06-29
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2016-06-29
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2016-06-24
08 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-06-24
08 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, mmusic@ietf.org, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, "Flemming Andreasen" , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, mmusic@ietf.org, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, "Flemming Andreasen" , draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Indicating Exclusive Support of RTP/RTCP Multiplexing using SDP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
- 'Indicating Exclusive Support of RTP/RTCP Multiplexing using SDP'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-07-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'rtcp-mux-
  only', that can be used by an endpoint to indicate exclusive support
  of RTP/RTCP multiplexing.  The document also updates RFC 5761, by
  clarifying that an offerer can use a mechanism to indicate that it is
  not able to send and receive RTCP on separate ports.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2016-06-24
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-06-24
08 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell Last call was requested
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was generated
2016-06-23
08 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-06-22
08 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-08.txt
2016-06-21
07 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation
2016-06-21
07 Ben Campbell
Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07. I think this is almost ready for IETF last call, but would like to see some discussion of …
Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07. I think this is almost ready for IETF last call, but would like to see some discussion of my substantive comments first.
----------------
Substantive:

-- Why the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer? I assume it's due to the two quoted "OLD" paragraphs from RFC 5761. That RFC is post-5378, but also contains the disclaimer. Has there been any discussion about getting permission to use the standard boilerplate? (If not, why not?)

-- 1, 3rd paragraph:

I’d like to see a bit more guidance here. What do we mean by application? I _think_ we mean something like WebRTC, where there are no legacy UAs to talk to. But I’d hate to see someone implement this in a SIP UA that talks to other arbitrary SIP UAs, just because the implementor didn’t want to bother with the legacy case.

Editorial:

- 4.5, last paragraph:
It seems odd to find 2119 keywords in a "NOTE". I usually think of such things as parenthetical sidebars, not core protocol definition. Please consider dropping the "NOTE:" prefix.

-- 11.2, reference to bundle:

Outdated reference. (The RFC editor will fix this, but if there happens to be an update before then...)

2016-06-17
07 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard.

The RFC updates the Standards Track RFC 5761.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'rtcp-mux-only', that can be used by an endpoint to indicate exclusive support of RTP/RTCP multiplexing.  The document also updates RFC 5761, by clarifying that an offerer can use a mechanism to indicate that it is not able to send and receive RTCP on separate ports.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

A WGLC was originally issued on the -03 version, which led to a couple of WG participants questioning the need for the mechanism (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/7fcpfQWcfV8qkWFyAaaVl_2xBGA). After considerable discussion and discussion at IETF95, there was WG consensus to continue with the solution (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/5OWNyDa4PpLbeX5mZ77zYMjqsBA). The consensus was confirmed on the mailing list with several indications of support and no objections. 


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

At least two major browser vendors have indicated that their intention is to only support multiplexed RTP/RTCP for their WebRTC support.
At least one WebRTC gateway vendor has indicated that they will support the protocol, in order to recognize WebRTC entities that only support multiplexed RTP/RTCP.
The protocol has been adopted by 3GPP, and is mandatory to implement within the eP-CSCF function, which contains e.g. WebRTC gateway functionality.

Reviewers that merit special mention are Roman Shpount, Paul Kyzivat and Martin Thomson.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Flemming Andreasen is the Document Shepherd and Ben Campbell is the Responsible AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I reviewed the -04 version in detail, which resulted in a few changes. I have reviewed -07 (current version) as well.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns. The mechanism has seen significant discussion and review. 


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

Not applicable.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

There are no such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The author has confirmed.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

There is no IPR disclosure

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There is solid consensus in the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

There are no such indications.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

The document has been checked and no issues found. Note that there is a (false) warning about a possible reference ("[10]").

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No such (normative) references.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No such references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No status change (but it does update RFC 5761 as noted previously and indicated on the document front page)


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA considerations have been reviewed and look good, except for a typo in the author's e-mail address, which should be corrected before publication.



(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Not applicable.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-06-10
07 Flemming Andreasen Changed document writeup
2016-06-09
07 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07.txt
2016-06-08
06 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-06.txt
2016-06-03
05 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-05.txt
2016-04-29
04 Flemming Andreasen Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2016-04-29
04 Flemming Andreasen IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2016-04-28
04 Flemming Andreasen Notification list changed to "Flemming Andreasen" <fandreas@cisco.com>
2016-04-28
04 Flemming Andreasen Document shepherd changed to Flemming Andreasen
2016-04-15
04 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-04.txt
2016-04-04
03 Bo Burman Added -03 to session: IETF-95: mmusic  Tue-1000
2016-03-10
03 Flemming Andreasen Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2016-03-10
03 Flemming Andreasen IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call
2016-02-22
03 Flemming Andreasen IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-02-15
03 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-03.txt
2016-02-15
02 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-02.txt
2016-02-06
01 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-01.txt
2016-01-12
00 Bo Burman This document now replaces draft-holmberg-mmusic-mux-exclusive instead of None
2016-01-12
00 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-00.txt