Subject: [MMUSIC] Comment on draft-ietf-mmusic-securityprecondition-00.txt

From: Stach Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:00:17 +0200

Fleming, Dan,
 
I think the draft in general is quite clear.
Is a WGLC planned for the near future?

Nevertheless, I propose to change the example call flows in Figure 1 and 2
to show usage of the UPDATE method for the second SDP offer/answer exchange.
It could look like this

                  A                                            B 
    
                  |                                            | 
                  |-------------(1) INVITE SDP1--------------->| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |<------(2) 183 Session Progress SDP2--------| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |----------------(3) PRACK ----------------->| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |<-----------(4) 200 OK (PRACK) -------------| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |---------------(5) UPDATE SDP3------------->| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |<----------(6) 200 OK (UDATE) SDP4 ---------| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |<-------------(7) 180 Ringing---------------| 
                  |                                            | 
                  |                                            | 
                  |                                            | 

And of course a normative reference to RFC 3262 for PRACK and RFC3311 for
the UPDATE method should be added.

Kind Regards 

Thomas 

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

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:54:57 -0400

> Is a WGLC planned for the near future?
I'll defer to the WG chairs, but as far as I know, all comments and 
outstanding issues have been addressed and I believe it is ready for WGLC.

> Nevertheless, I propose to change the example call flows in Figure 1 
> and 2 to show usage of the UPDATE method for the second SDP 
> offer/answer exchange.
>
An earlier version of the document did that and it was pointed out that 
you save the UPDATE because you already have the necesssary information 
available at the time you want to send the PRACK, so it was removed. We 
could change one of the examples to include UPDATE if the WG wants to.

> And of course a normative reference to RFC 3262 for PRACK and RFC3311 
> for the UPDATE method should be added.
>
They are effectively there already because RFC 3312 makes it mandatory 
for you to support them, so I don't think we need to add them to the list.

-- Flemming