Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension for Setting Audio and Video Media Streams over Circuit-Switched Bearers in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-23
Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
mmusic mailing list <mmusic@ietf.org>,
mmusic chair <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-23.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and
Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public
Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)'
(draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-23.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs/
Ballot Text
*Technical Summary
*
The document describes use cases, requirements, and protocol extensions
for using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer model for
establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers
in the Publich Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
*Working Group Summary
*
The WG had some discussion around the format to use for E.164 numbers
and whether to align this with the existing definition in RFC 3108. The
RFC 3108 definition was seen as deficient and the WG agreed it was
better to align with relevant parts of the tel URI format defined in RFC
3966, not least since SDP address types are defined in the context of a
particular network type, and hence RFC 3108 compatibility is not a
concern (the implication is that the "E164" address type may differ
between network types in SDP).
*Document Quality
*
There are currently no known implementations of the draft, however the
draft is a dependency for 3GPP, so future implementations are expected.
The document has received good overall review in the WG, some of which
resulted in changes to the detailed specification. The document has been
reviewed in detail several times, including of the last few versions.
The major contributors to these as well as earlier discussions are
listed in the Acknowledgements section of the document.
*Personnel
*
Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo