Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Clarifications for RTP/RTCP Multiplexing
draft-ietf-avtcore-5761-update-06
Yes
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Ben Campbell)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-10-10 for -05)
Unknown
"If the answerer includes an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in the answer, the offerer and answerer MUST multiplex RTP and RTCP packets on a single port. If the answer does not contain an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute, the offerer and answerer MUST NOT multiplex RTP and RTCP packets on a single port." The first of these says "the answerer" and the second says "the answer." This is also how the text appears in 5761, but the difference between them caught my eye here because of the other changes being made. Is the intended meaning different between "the answerer" and the "the answer"? That is, is the implication that if the answerer include a=rtcp-mux but that somehow gets modified such that when the answer arrives at the offerer, it no longer contains a=rtcp-mux, that neither side is supposed to multiplex? This made a little more sense to me in 5761 because it was only about what the offerer should do, but now it is about what both parties should do, so I think it would help to clarify whether these two statements are both about what the answerer puts in the answer.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -03)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-10-12 for -05)
Unknown
Thanks for doing this work, and for your response to Alissa's comment on answer/answerer.
I did have one question - I wonder if the title
RFC 5761 SDP Offer/Answer Clarifications
might be clearer for readers who don't have RFC numbers memorized, if it was something like
a=rtcp-mux SDP Offer/Answer Clarifications
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-12 for -05)
Unknown
Rick Casarez <rick.casarez@gmail.com> provided the opsdir review
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown