Subject: [MMUSIC] Should SDP capneg "update" Offer/Answer (RFC 3264)?

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:20:22 -0600

A question came up during my review of SDP cap neg for which I would
like to seek input from the wg.

   As it's been discussed in IETF#71, and as is indicated on page 7,
   first paragraph, this document gives a number of O/A procedures
   when sdp cap neg is used.
   page 7:
   "SIP uses the offer/answer model [RFC3264] (which is not specific to
   SIP) to negotiate sessions and hence the mechanism defined here
   provides the offer/answer procedures to use for the capability
   negotiation framework."
   See also text in page 11, first paragraph and the actual O/A
   extensions and page 31 with section 3.6.1.

   Given the modified O/A procedures, and especially the modified
   processing of the answer by the offerer, should it update RFC 
   3264?

Comments welcome.

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

---

From: "Ingemar Johansson S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:40:49 +0200

Hi

My opinion...
I have tried to compare RFC3264 with SDPCapNeg and I don't actually find
a need to update RFC3264 optionally it is possible that RFC4317 should
be modified with SDPCapNeg examples but I don't believe that this is
needed either as the SDPCapNeg (as well as the media cap extension)
contains examples.

/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mule
> Sent: den 19 juni 2008 22:20
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Should SDP capneg "update" Offer/Answer (RFC 3264)?
> 
> A question came up during my review of SDP cap neg for which 
> I would like to seek input from the wg.
>