Skip to main content

Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-26
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Shwetha Bhandari Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
09 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2022-02-09
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2022-01-25
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-12-09
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IESG
2021-12-05
09 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-09.txt
2021-12-05
09 (System) New version approved
2021-12-05
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-12-05
09 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-12-03
08 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-08.txt
2021-12-03
08 (System) New version approved
2021-12-03
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-12-03
08 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-12-02
07 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-07.txt
2021-12-02
07 (System) New version approved
2021-12-02
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-12-02
07 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-11-17
06 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06.txt
2021-11-17
06 (System) New version approved
2021-11-17
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-11-17
06 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-11-05
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IESG from RFC-EDITOR
2021-10-18
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-09-22
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2021-09-21
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2021-09-21
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-09-20
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2021-09-17
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-09-17
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-09-17
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-09-17
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-09-17
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2021-09-17
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2021-09-17
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-09-17
05 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2021-09-15
05 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent
2021-09-15
05 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2021-09-06
05 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-09-06
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-09-06
05 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-05.txt
2021-09-06
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christer Holmberg)
2021-09-06
05 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-08-26
04 (System) Changed action holders to Harald Alvestrand, Cullen Jennings, Christer Holmberg (IESG state changed)
2021-08-26
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2021-08-26
04 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-08-25
04 Francesca Palombini
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ART ART review: I agree with him that mentioning …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ART ART review: I agree with him that mentioning IETF 110 in Section 1.4 seem strange, and I would suggest rewording to remove that. Additionally in the same section, mentioning erratas by their numbers does not help a reader who is not familiar with the IETF errata reporting system: instead, I would suggest to rephrase so to give a high level summary to the reader about what these erratas were about.

Below, two nits I happened to notice.

Francesca

## Nits

1. ----

  *  In a subsequent offer, or in an answer (initial of subsequent),

FP: s/of/or

2. ----

  If the
  answer wants to move the "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group, it
  will have to first accept it

FP: s/answer/answerer
2021-08-25
04 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2021-08-25
04 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks a lot for the efforts put into this document.

I don't have much to add other than some minor comments (would be …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks a lot for the efforts put into this document.

I don't have much to add other than some minor comments (would be nice if addressed but feel free to ignore them ) below-

  * I think the paragraph below is best fitted in the section 5 due to the use of normative language.( I also understand this might be a matter of taste.)
      "A given BUNDLE address:port MUST only be associated with a single
  BUNDLE group.  If an SDP offer or SDP answer (hereafter referred to
  as "offer" and "answer") contains multiple BUNDLE groups, the
  procedures in this specification apply to each group independently.
  All RTP-based bundled media associated with a given BUNDLE group
  belong to a single RTP session [RFC3550]."

  * The title for section 7.2 is kind of misleading. This section is about initial BUNDLE offer, not really initial SDP offer and there is a difference between the initial offer and initial BUNDLE offer.
          Suggestion:  s/Generating the Initial SDP Offer/ Generating the Initial BUNDLE Offer.
    The same comment applies for section 7.2.2
2021-08-25
04 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-08-24
04 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very readable, even for someone with no SDP knowledge. I don't have much in the way to …
[Ballot comment]
I found this document to be very readable, even for someone with no SDP knowledge. I don't have much in the way to add, other than that it seems useful...
[ You are welcome for this deeply insightful comment :-) ]
2021-08-24
04 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2021-08-24
04 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-08-24
04 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Document obsoletes RFC8843, but does not cite it as a reference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that …
[Ballot comment]
Document obsoletes RFC8843, but does not cite it as a reference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 9.1. , paragraph 6, nit:
> er for an offerer and answerer to always be able to associate an RTP stream w
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
The adverb "always" usually goes after the verb "be".

Section 9.1.1. , paragraph 2, nit:
> ons can implement RTP stacks in many different ways. The algorithm below deta
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider using "many".

Section 9.1.1. , paragraph 7, nit:
> n, then the RTP stream is not decoded and the payload data is discarded. * I
>                                      ^^^^
Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

Section 9.1.1. , paragraph 9, nit:
> erwise, the RTP stream is not decoded and the payload data is discarded. * I
>                                      ^^^^
Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

Section 15. , paragraph 4, nit:
> s, flows over the network, with the exception of the usage of the MID SDES i
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider using "except" or "except for".

Section 15. , paragraph 7, nit:
> p counter, and SHOULD be 3 bytes or less to allow them to efficiently fit in
>                                    ^^^^
Did you mean "fewer"? The noun bytes is countable.

Section 19.1. , paragraph 13, nit:
> d in RFC 3605, yet acted this way. Further assume that the B2BUA was configur
>                                    ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Further".

Obsolete reference to RFC4566, obsoleted by RFC8866 (this may be on purpose).

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which is being deprecated:
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07
2021-08-24
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2021-08-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
The errata report eid 6437 should probably be marked as "Verified" (or
at least something other than "Reported") since it is being fixed …
[Ballot comment]
The errata report eid 6437 should probably be marked as "Verified" (or
at least something other than "Reported") since it is being fixed in
this update.

Since I reviewed draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation before it
became RFC 8843, I don't have much left to say about this document.  I
did look over the diffs between the version I reviewed, RFC 8843 itself,
and this version; there was one point (mentioning the URI allocation for
the RTP SDES header extension in the main body of the document) that got
some proposed text in email but didn't seem to make it into this
document:
https//mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/eFxsB6G-_LmrEDMSOxfc16tzVhU/ .
It's a quite minor point, so not a problem if the change is not made.

Some other remarks from looking over the document as a whole:

Section 7.2.2

Perhaps s/The example/The following example/ (twice), since there are
two examples in this section.

Section 7.3.1

                                          If there are no more
  identification-tags in the identification-tag list, the answerer MUST
  NOT create the BUNDLE group.  Unless the answerer rejects the whole
  offer, the answerer MUST apply the answerer procedures for moving an
  "m=" section out of a BUNDLE group (Section 7.3.2) or rejecting an
  "m=" section within a BUNDLE group (Section 7.3.3) to every bundled
  "m=" section in the offer when creating the answer.

Just to confirm: the last sentence only applies in the "no more
identification-tags" case described by the preceding sentence?  I wonder
if it's worth adding a couple words to solidify that connection.

Section 7.3.3

  When an answerer wants to reject a bundled "m=" section in an answer,
  it MUST first check the following criterion:

  *  In the corresponding offer, the "m=" section is the offerer-tagged
      "m=" section.

The definition of "offerer-tagged "m=" section" is doing some heavy
lifting here, by requiring that it be in a *subsequent* offer.  I wonder
if this is worth calling out here, since the defined term also has a
natural reading as a generic phrase, which would give a different
meaning.

Section 7.4

  When an offerer receives an answer, if the answer contains a BUNDLE
  group, the offerer MUST check that any bundled "m=" section in the
  answer was indicated as bundled in the corresponding offer.  [...]

By my reading, this doesn't require the offerer to check that the "m="
sections in the answer are still in the same BUNDLE group that they were
in in the offer (if there are multiple BUNDLE groups active).

Section 9.3.1.2

  In an initial BUNDLE offer, if the suggested offerer-tagged "m="
  section contained an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute, the "m=" section
  was for RTP-based media; thus, the answerer does not accept the "m="
  section in the created BUNDLE group, and the answerer MUST move the
  "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group (Section 7.3.2); include the
  attribute in the moved "m=" section and enable RTP/RTCP multiplexing
  for the media associated with the "m=" section; or reject the "m="
  section (Section 7.3.3).

I'm having a hard time parsing this (long!) sentence.  The first
semicolon seems to be used to join related sentences, but the latter two
seem to be acting as list separators (where the list members have
internal commas), and that's a little jarring to have the different
semicolon uses in the same sentence.  Additionally, if I keep that
parsing, this seems to say that all "m=" sessions for RTP-based media
cannot be included in the BUNDLE group by the answerer, which is quite
surprising.  If we applied s/thus,/thus, if/ and s/, and/,/, then this
parsing would make more sense to me, but I don't know if that would
provide the intended semantics.

Section 16

Did we consider reframing the IANA considerations along the lines of
"update the existing registration to use this document as a reference"?
Doing that makes it a little easier to understand the history of the
registry entries, though needing the history is admittedly a rather
uncommon case.

Section 17

It seems that the logic for routing bundled RTP/RTCP messages to the
proper media stream processor could be quite complex, and complex
systems are potentially prone to error, but I'm not really sure there's
a useful way to acknowledge that in the security considerations here.
2021-08-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-08-23
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-08-23
04 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Derrell Piper for the SECDIR review.
2021-08-23
04 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-08-22
04 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-08-21
04 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-08-21
04 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ARTART review.
2021-08-21
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy
2021-08-16
04 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-08-26
2021-08-16
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot has been issued
2021-08-16
04 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-08-16
04 Murray Kucherawy Created "Approve" ballot
2021-08-16
04 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2021-08-16
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2021-08-09
04 Claudio Allocchio Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio. Sent review to list.
2021-08-09
04 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list.
2021-08-09
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2021-08-06
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2021-08-06
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

We'll replace all the references to RFC 8843 in the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registries located at:

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

If that's incorrect, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2021-08-03
04 Derrell Piper Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derrell Piper. Sent review to list.
2021-07-28
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari
2021-07-28
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari
2021-07-27
04 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Claudio Allocchio
2021-07-27
04 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Claudio Allocchio
2021-07-27
04 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 1 November 2019.

(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 title page shows Standards Track as the Intended Status, which is appropriate given the impact on other standards track documents.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This specification defines a new Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework extension called 'BUNDLE'.  The extension can be used with the SDP offer/answer mechanism to negotiate the usage of a single transport (5-tuple) for sending and receiving media described by multiple SDP media descriptions ("m=" sections).  Such transport is referred to as a BUNDLE transport, and the media is referred to as bundled media.  The "m=" sections that use the BUNDLE transport form a BUNDLE group.

This specification defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description (SDES) item and a new RTP header extension.

This specification updates RFCs 3264, 5888, and 7941.

This specification obsoletes RFC 8843.



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?

When RFC 8843 was published, there was a known inconsistency with JSEP (RFC 8829). This document corrects that inconsistency and incorporates two erratas as well. The nature of the update was agreed to beforehand with the RTCWeb WG and MMUSIC WG participants and the scope of the update was explicitly limited accordingly. There has been no subsequent disagreements or concerns raised.



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, YANG 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?

The protocol is an important part of the RTCWeb suite of specifications and browser vendors have either implemented or are planning to implement the specification.

Paul Kyzivat and Roman Shpount both provided good reviews.

Personnel:

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

Flemming Andreasen is the Document Shepherd
Murray Kucherawy is the Responsible Area Director


(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 have reviewed the current version of the document in detail. Several WG participans have done the same. The document is ready to proceed.

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

No such concerns

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A


(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?

Each 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.

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 behind the document, incl. overall alignment with the RTCWeb WG and the accompanying JSEP specification (RFC 8829). While the document has been formally reviewed by the MMUSIC group only, please note that there is substantial overlap between the WG participants in MMUSIC and RTCWeb and the document has been reviewed by known RTCWeb WG participants in MMUSIC. Also, the MMUSIC WG Last Call announcement was sent to the RTCWeb group mailing list.

(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.)

N/A

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

No nits have been found. Remaining ID-nits check issues are all false positives, incl. the reference to the obsolete RFC 4566, which is retained on purpose (see below as well).

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

N/A

(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?

N/A

(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.

The document contains a normative reference to RFC 4566, which has been obsoleted by RFC 8566. RFC 8843 (i.e. the previous version of this specification) contained this obsolete reference as well. Note that RFC 8843 was part of the so-called “Cluster 238” set of documents, where it was agreed to reference RFC 4566 rather than RFC 8566. Replacing the RFC 4566 reference with a reference to RFC 8566 is outside the scope of the agreed to updates in this 8843bis document and it may impact existing implementations and other “Cluster 238” documents as well.


(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.

The document obsoletes RFC 8843 and it updates RFCs 3264, 5888 and 7941, all of which is indicated on the title page and called out in the abstract and introduction.


(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 8126).

IANA considerations have been reviewed. Registrations are consistent with the main body of the document and the relevant registry requirements.

(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.

N/A

(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-07-23
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles
2021-07-23
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles
2021-07-19
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper
2021-07-19
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper
2021-07-19
04 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2021-07-19
04 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-08-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-08-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document: - 'Negotiating Media
Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol
  (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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-08-09. 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 specification defines a new Session Description Protocol (SDP)
  Grouping Framework extension called 'BUNDLE'.  The extension can be
  used with the SDP offer/answer mechanism to negotiate the usage of a
  single transport (5-tuple) for sending and receiving media described
  by multiple SDP media descriptions ("m=" sections).  Such transport
  is referred to as a BUNDLE transport, and the media is referred to as
  bundled media.  The "m=" sections that use the BUNDLE transport form
  a BUNDLE group.

  This specification defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source
  Description (SDES) item and a new RTP header extension.

  This specification updates RFCs 3264, 5888, and 7941.

  This specification obsoletes RFC 8843.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis/



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




2021-07-19
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2021-07-19
04 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2021-07-17
04 Murray Kucherawy Last call was requested
2021-07-17
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot approval text was generated
2021-07-17
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was generated
2021-07-17
04 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2021-07-17
04 Murray Kucherawy Last call announcement was generated
2021-07-09
04 (System) Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed)
2021-07-09
04 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-07-06
04 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 1 November 2019.

(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 title page shows Standards Track as the Intended Status, which is appropriate given the impact on other standards track documents.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This specification defines a new Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework extension called 'BUNDLE'.  The extension can be used with the SDP offer/answer mechanism to negotiate the usage of a single transport (5-tuple) for sending and receiving media described by multiple SDP media descriptions ("m=" sections).  Such transport is referred to as a BUNDLE transport, and the media is referred to as bundled media.  The "m=" sections that use the BUNDLE transport form a BUNDLE group.

This specification defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description (SDES) item and a new RTP header extension.

This specification updates RFCs 3264, 5888, and 7941.

This specification obsoletes RFC 8843.



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?

When RFC 8843 was published, there was a known inconsistency with JSEP (RFC 8829). This document corrects that inconsistency and incorporates two erratas as well. The nature of the update was agreed to beforehand with the RTCWeb WG and MMUSIC WG participants and the scope of the update was explicitly limited accordingly. There has been no subsequent disagreements or concerns raised.



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, YANG 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?

The protocol is an important part of the RTCWeb suite of specifications and browser vendors have either implemented or are planning to implement the specification.

Paul Kyzivat and Roman Shpount both provided good reviews.

Personnel:

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

Flemming Andreasen is the Document Shepherd
Murray Kucherawy is the Responsible Area Director


(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 have reviewed the current version of the document in detail. Several WG participans have done the same. The document is ready to proceed.

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

No such concerns

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A


(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?

Each 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.

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 behind the document, incl. overall alignment with the RTCWeb WG and the accompanying JSEP specification (RFC 8829)

(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.)

N/A

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

No nits have been found. Remaining ID-nits check issues are all false positives, incl. the reference to the obsolete RFC 4566, which is retained on purpose (see below as well).

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

N/A

(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?

N/A

(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.

The document contains a normative reference to RFC 4566, which has been obsoleted by RFC 8566. RFC 8843 (i.e. the previous version of this specification) contained this obsolete reference as well. Note that RFC 8843 was part of the so-called “Cluster 238” set of documents, where it was agreed to reference RFC 4566 rather than RFC 8566. Replacing the RFC 4566 reference with a reference to RFC 8566 is outside the scope of the agreed to updates in this 8843bis document and it may impact existing implementations and other “Cluster 238” documents as well.


(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.

The document obsoletes RFC 8843 and it updates RFCs 3264, 5888 and 7941, all of which is indicated on the title page and called out in the abstract and introduction.


(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 8126).

IANA considerations have been reviewed. Registrations are consistent with the main body of the document and the relevant registry requirements.

(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.

N/A

(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-07-06
04 Flemming Andreasen Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy
2021-07-06
04 Flemming Andreasen IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-07-06
04 Flemming Andreasen IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-07-06
04 Flemming Andreasen IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-07-06
04 Flemming Andreasen Notification list changed to fandreas@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-07-06
04 Flemming Andreasen Document shepherd changed to Flemming Andreasen
2021-07-06
04 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 1 November 2019.

(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 title page shows Standards Track as the Intended Status, which is appropriate given the impact on other standards track documents.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This specification defines a new Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework extension called 'BUNDLE'.  The extension can be used with the SDP offer/answer mechanism to negotiate the usage of a single transport (5-tuple) for sending and receiving media described by multiple SDP media descriptions ("m=" sections).  Such transport is referred to as a BUNDLE transport, and the media is referred to as bundled media.  The "m=" sections that use the BUNDLE transport form a BUNDLE group.

This specification defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description (SDES) item and a new RTP header extension.

This specification updates RFCs 3264, 5888, and 7941.

This specification obsoletes RFC 8843.



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?

When RFC 8843 was published, there was a known inconsistency with JSEP (RFC 8829). This document corrects that inconsistency and incorporates two erratas as well. The nature of the update was agreed to beforehand with the RTCWeb WG and MMUSIC WG participants and the scope of the update was explicitly limited accordingly. There has been no subsequent disagreements or concerns raised.



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, YANG 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?

The protocol is an important part of the RTCWeb suite of specifications and browser vendors have either implemented or are planning to implement the specification.

Paul Kyzivat and Roman Shpount both provided good reviews.

Personnel:

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

Flemming Andreasen is the Document Shepherd
Murray Kucherawy is the Responsible Area Director


(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 have reviewed the current version of the document in detail. Several WG participans have done the same. The document is ready to proceed.

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

No such concerns

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A


(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?

Each 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.

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 behind the document, incl. overall alignment with the RTCWeb WG and the accompanying JSEP specification (RFC 8829)

(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.)

N/A

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

No nits have been found. Remaining ID-nits check issues are all false positives, incl. the reference to the obsolete RFC 4566, which is retained on purpose (see below as well).

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

N/A

(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?

N/A

(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.

The document contains a normative reference to RFC 4566, which has been obsoleted by RFC 8566. RFC 8843 (i.e. the previous version of this specification) contained this obsolete reference as well. Note that RFC 8843 was part of the so-called “Cluster 238” set of documents, where it was agreed to reference RFC 4566 rather than RFC 8566. Replacing the RFC 4566 reference with a reference to RFC 8566 is outside the scope of the agreed to updates in this 8843bis document and it may impact existing implementations and other “Cluster 238” documents as well.


(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.

The document obsoletes RFC 8843 and it updates RFCs 3264, 5888 and 7941, all of which is indicated on the title page and called out in the abstract and introduction.


(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 8126).

IANA considerations have been reviewed. Registrations are consistent with the main body of the document and the relevant registry requirements.

(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.

N/A

(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-07-04
04 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04.txt
2021-07-04
04 (System) New version approved
2021-07-04
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-07-04
04 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-06-24
03 Flemming Andreasen IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2021-06-23
03 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-03.txt
2021-06-23
03 (System) New version approved
2021-06-23
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-06-23
03 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-06-07
02 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-02.txt
2021-06-07
02 (System) New version approved
2021-06-07
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-06-07
02 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-06-04
01 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-01.txt
2021-06-04
01 (System) New version approved
2021-06-04
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Cullen Jennings , Harald Alvestrand
2021-06-04
01 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision
2021-05-06
00 Bo Burman Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-05-06
00 Bo Burman Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-05-06
00 Bo Burman This document now replaces draft-holmberg-mmusic-rfc8843bis instead of None
2021-05-06
00 Christer Holmberg New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt
2021-05-06
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-05-06
00 Christer Holmberg Set submitter to "Christer Holmberg ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org
2021-05-06
00 Christer Holmberg Uploaded new revision