Skip to main content

TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
RFC 4145

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Allison Mankin
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ted Hardie
2005-09-21
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2005-09-21
10 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4145' added by Amy Vezza
2005-09-19
10 (System) RFC published
2005-03-18
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-03-10
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-03-10
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-03-10
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-03-10
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2005-03-10
10 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten
2005-01-26
10 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ted Hardie
2005-01-08
10 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Allison Mankin
2004-11-30
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-11-30
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-10.txt
2004-10-15
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-10-15
10 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-10-14
2004-10-14
10 Allison Mankin
[Ballot discuss]
My comment is similar to one of Ted's but I'm going to home in some text.  In Section 3, it seems
inappropriate to …
[Ballot discuss]
My comment is similar to one of Ted's but I'm going to home in some text.  In Section 3, it seems
inappropriate to look forward to other connection-oriented protocols with:
                                            These
  attributes MAY be used in conjunction with any m= line which uses a
  connection-oriented transport protocol, even if the protocol
  identifier of the m= line is not TCP.
Their point should be stated as:  the meanings of the attributes are not TCP-specific, and
therefore this specification's defined attributes are usable by future comedia if they need them.
Other connection-oriented protocols might not choose to - DCCP, for instance - so it should
be left to those future specifications to call out which they use.

I read the IANA discussion of format as confusing, but in conjunction with this from
RFC 2327:

    For media whose transport protocol is not RTP or UDP the format
    field is protocol specific.  Such formats should be defined in an
    additional specification document.

It reads ok to me.  I understand the SHOULD because some media are not
formatted.

Within the IANA Considerations:  don't the values of setup and connection also need
to be registered?
2004-10-14
10 Thomas Narten [Ballot comment]
nits:

>    identifier, TCP, to describe TCP connetions in SDP.

spelling

>    Connection-oriented protocols introduce two new factor when

s/factor/factors/
2004-10-14
10 Thomas Narten
[Ballot discuss]
Easy to fix, and relatively minor...

In the IANA considerations:

>    Section 5 respectively.  These two attributes should be registered by
>  …
[Ballot discuss]
Easy to fix, and relatively minor...

In the IANA considerations:

>    Section 5 respectively.  These two attributes should be registered by
>    the IANA on
>
>    http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
>
>    under "att-field (both session and media level)".

please don't use the URLs. Better:

  Section 5 respectively.  These two attributes should be registered
  by the IANA under "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters"
  [RFC2327] under "att-field (both session and media level)".

same for other IANA URLs
2004-10-14
10 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-10-14
10 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2004-10-14
10 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-10-13
10 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2004-10-13
10 Michelle Cotton
IANA Review - Per section 9 (IANA Considerations), we understand upon approval of this document that the IANA will make 3 (three) registrations in the …
IANA Review - Per section 9 (IANA Considerations), we understand upon approval of this document that the IANA will make 3 (three) registrations in the sdp-parameters registry.
2004-10-13
10 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-10-13
10 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART

His review:
This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
2004-10-13
10 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-10-12
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Amy Vezza
2004-10-12
10 Ted Hardie
[Ballot discuss]
Is there any value to allowing extensibility in conn-value, so that a system
which wanted to disambiguate among existing connections (replace *this* one, …
[Ballot discuss]
Is there any value to allowing extensibility in conn-value, so that a system
which wanted to disambiguate among existing connections (replace *this* one,
among the set) could use it to do so?

In section 5.2, it first appeared to me that an offerer who wished to
allow re-use of an existing connection must always offer it first, since
there is no way for the answerer to off "existing" to "new".  First,
does this bias the re-use, and is that bias intended?  Second, reading
the 3rd party call control scenario made me suspect that I might be
reading to much in--in that scenario, is it possible to replace existing
with new?

I found the IANA section also a bit tough to puzzle out.  Does it mean
that the "fmt" registry is an independent registry which is largely a subset of the MIME registry
or does it mean that any sensible MIME registration may be used with
the TCP proto?  Is the text "specifications...must define the rules...." there
normative?

I think the IANA issue above is actual a symptom of trying to do a bit
more than define the TCP proto--the document is also giving advice
on what other connection oriented documents ought to do.  That
advice seems to be sometimes couched as "this may be used for any proto
of this type" and sometimes as "anyone following in our footsteps must
do this too".  I don't think they've made choices in any of that, but
the spec would be tighter if it were organized so that re-usable
items were clearly marked as 'now available', 'good advice you may want',
or 'required'.
2004-10-12
10 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-10-11
10 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin
2004-10-11
10 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Last paragraph of Intoduction: s/new factor/new factors/
2004-10-11
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-10-11
10 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-10-10
10 Margaret Cullen
[Ballot comment]
There are some special characters in this document.  All of the hyphens appear strangely (at least I think they are supposed to be …
[Ballot comment]
There are some special characters in this document.  All of the hyphens appear strangely (at least I think they are supposed to be hyphens), for example the one used in "m-".
2004-10-10
10 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-10-06
10 Jon Peterson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-10-14 by Jon Peterson
2004-10-06
10 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson
2004-10-06
10 Jon Peterson Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson
2004-10-06
10 Jon Peterson Created "Approve" ballot
2004-09-29
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-09.txt
2004-09-23
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2004-09-09
10 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-09-09
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-09-09
10 Jon Peterson Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson
2004-09-09
10 Jon Peterson State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jon Peterson
2004-09-09
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-09-09
10 (System) Last call text was added
2004-09-09
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-07-19
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-08.txt
2004-07-12
10 Jon Peterson Note field has been cleared by Jon Peterson
2004-06-11
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-07.txt
2004-05-14
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-05-14
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-06.txt
2003-04-07
10 Jon Peterson Shepherding AD has been changed to Peterson, Jon from Mankin, Allison
2003-03-07
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-05.txt
2002-11-18
10 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation  :: Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Mankin, Allison
2002-10-24
10 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation  -- 0 from Publication Requested by mankin
2002-07-30
10 Stephen Coya Draft Added by scoya
2002-07-25
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-04.txt
2002-05-30
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-03.txt
2002-04-16
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-02.txt
2001-10-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-01.txt
2001-02-19
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-00.txt