Subject: [Sipping] RTCP Summary Draft -- M= line issue

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:29:19 -0600

Marc previously noted:

-----
With this version, the c=, m= and a= lines of the SDP are copied in the 
report event. But as the m= line can list more than one codec, how do 
we know which one was used?

Also when used on an endpoint that supports ICE, the IP address in the 
m= line and the port in the m= line are not used. Does it means that 
the a=candidate line should also be added in the event report? If it is 
the case then we have the same problem than above, we do not know which 
IP address/port was used.

One solution to this problem could be to insert in the event report a 
stripped version of the m=, c= and a= lines that contain only what was 
used for the duration of the event . . .
------

This sounds reasonable to me -- "Report what you actually did, not what 
you talked about maybe doing."

Group? Any objections? If not, the authors should note this for 
inclusion in the post-WGLC doc that will be submitted to IETF.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Amy Pendleton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:16:09 -0500

The intention was that only one m-line and one codec on that m-line should
be reported in the event. The purpose was to enable easy extension to other
media types besides audio and using portions of the SDP seemed the easiest
way without opening a can of worms. The draft does lack some of the
necessary explanation about usage of the SDP lines, but others agree that
this will work, I can add some more text to the draft.
Thanks,
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnston, Alan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:34 PM
To: Dean Willis; 'sipping' WG
Cc: [email-masked]; Marc Petit-Huguenin
Subject: RE: RTCP Summary Draft -- M= line issue

I think this is reasonable, but I think it goes beyond this draft.

I have been troubleshooting ICE implementations lately, and it is incredibly
difficult to figure out what happened on a give call and why it might have
failed.

I'd suggest that the result of the ICE tests is part of the session state
and should be reflected somehow in SIP.  For example, perhaps a re-INVITE
after ICE completes to indicate which IP address and port the media was
actually sent to would be incredibly useful.  Other mechanisms could be fine
- we just need to standardize it so everyone does it.

Thanks,
Alan Johnston
sip:[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:29 PM
> To: 'sipping' WG
> Cc: Johnston, Alan; Amy Pendleton; Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Subject: RTCP Summary Draft -- M= line issue
> 
> 
> Marc previously noted:
> 
> -----