Subject: [MMUSIC] Updated "SDP source filter" Internet draft

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:08:19 -0700

FYI, I have submitted an updated version of the "SDP source filter" 
Internet draft.  Until it appears on the IETF web site, you an get a copy 
at <http://www.live.com/mmusic-sdp-srcfilter-02.txt>

This new draft incorporates most of the comments that people had about the 
previous version.  However, there are still a couple of open issues that 
I'd like to get comments on:

Before Yokohama, someone commented:
>Section 2 and Appendix A.
>The definition of the filter attribute. Wouldn't it be better to define a 
>short attribute name to the source filter instead of having two attributes 
>called incl and excl? I would propose a=SF:<filter-mode>:<filter-spec>.

To which I replied:
I'm not sure.  The syntax of "a=incl:" and "a=excl:" seems more consistent 
with that of other SDP attributes.  OTOH, they introduce two new attributes 
rather than one.  A possible alternative might be something like
         a=filter <filter-mode> <filter-spec>
where <filter-mode> is "incl" or "excl" (or "include" or "exclude").

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

There was also the comment:
>Section 2.2.4
>The example text is in contradiction with the processing rules in section 
>2.1. According to the processing rules all three src adresses (1.1.1.1, 
>2.2.2.2 and 3.3.3.3) are valid for any of the three multicast adresses.

Question for Bob (Quinn): Section 2.1 says
         "all unicast addresses in the <src-list> are valid sources for any
         of the multicast addresses in the address series implied by the
         <number of addresses>."
but the example in 2.2.4 contradicts this.  Which semantics did you intend?

         Ross.

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