Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] RTSP: Requirement on using Allow in media resource specific OPTIONS responses

From: "Thomas Zeng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:41:31 -0800

Ok, we mis-interpreted the standards before.

Thanks for pointing it out.

-thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:34 PM
To: Thomas Zeng
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP: Requirement on using Allow in media resource
specific OPTIONS responses

Hi Thomas,

My proposed change was not around Public header, which already has been
mandated for a while. The change is to ensure that clients can rely on
receiving a Allow header if there is a difference with Public header for
the specified resource.

Cheers

Magnus

Thomas Zeng wrote:
> Hi Magnus:
> 
> Our implementation only includes "Allow" header for any resource 
> specific URL in the OPTIONS response.
> 
> I like your proposal to mandate "Public" header in such cases, even 
> though it means our implementation has to change.
> 
> It will make the standard less ambiguous.
> 
> Thanks,
> -thomas
>  
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:57:40 +0100
> Subject: [MMUSIC] RTSP: Requirement on using Allow in media resource 
> specific OPTIONS responses
> To: "mmusic (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It has come to my knowledge that the current specification of usage of

> Allow header may be to free to be useful.
> 
> Currently OPTIONS method text says:
> 
>    Regardless of scope of the request, the Public header MUST always
be
>    included in the OPTIONS response listing the methods that are
>    supported by the responding RTSP agent. In addition, if the scope
of
>    the request is limited to a media resource, the Allow header MAY be
>    included in the response to enumerate the set of methods that are
>    allowed for that resource.
> 
> Thus a client indicating a specific media resource can not be 
> guaranteed to get an correct indication if the media resource specific

> support is limited compared to the general capabilities. Therefore I 
> would propose to change this to:
> 
>    Regardless of scope of the request, the Public header MUST always
be
>    included in the OPTIONS response listing the methods that are
>    supported by the responding RTSP agent. In addition, if the scope
of
>    the request is limited to a media resource, the Allow header MUST
be
>    included in the response to enumerate the set of methods that are
>    allowed for that resource unless the set of methods completely
>    matches the set in the Public header.
> 
> So what do you say about such a change?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
> Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic