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 | [Ballot comment] Tim Wicinski performed the opsdir review. |
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 |