Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP "alt-ports" are not mentioned in the RFC.

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:48:24 -0400

WG,

I hereby proposes the following text

In addition to the registered default ports, i.e. 554 (rtsp) and 322
(rtsps), there are an alternative port 8554 registered. This port may
provide some benefits from non-registered ports if a RTSP server is
unable to use the default port. The benefits may include pre-configured
security policies as well as classifiers in network monitoring tools.

to be added in Section 10.2 after the first paragraph. Please comment if
you see issues with this or thinks it is fine.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2012-12-17 22:17, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> (Grumple... I wish this mailing list were set up so that replies went to
> the mailing list by default.  Resending to the whole mailing list
> instead of just Magnus.)
> 
>> The question is if this port number has any benefit at all.
> 
> Yes it does.  If a RTSP server cannot use port 554 (most likely because
> it is running on a Unix system, but not as 'root'), then it can try
> using port 8554 instead.  (FWIW, our RTSP server implementation - widely
> used on the Internet - does this.)  As you noted, if a server uses port
> 8554 (or any port other than 554), then this port number will need to be
> included in the "rtsp://" URLs that clients use.  But it's beneficial to
> know - e.g., if you're managing a network's 'security' policy - that
> RTSP will likely be used on either port 554 or port 8554 (rather than
> either port 554 or some unspecified other port number).  Similarly, it's
> useful for network monitoring tools to know that traffic on port 8554 is
> likely to be RTSP.
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Sean Sheedy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:21:03 -0400

I agree with this solution.  A couple of wording nits (interspersed):

> (rtsps), there are an alternative port 8554 registered. This port may
   (rtsps), an alternate port 8554 is registered.  Using this registered 
port

> provide some benefits from non-registered ports if a RTSP server is
provides some benefits over non-registered ...

>> included in the"rtsp://"  URLs that clients use.  But it's beneficial to

-- 
~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--
Sean Sheedy
Staff System Software Engineer, Media and Communications Systems
[email-masked]  | 503-495-9454 (Phone)
~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--