Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Protocol Action: 'SDP: Session Description Protocol' - resolution declaration for video stream

From: "Osher Hmelnizky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:55:52 +0200

Hi, I'm looking for the resolution declaration for video stream in SDP. 

I didn't find anything standard for declaration of video resolution -
like "CIF", "QCIF",...

SHALL be it a part of the "a=fmtp" line of SDP? 

Is it any other standard option exists?

Best regards

Osher

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of The IESG
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:06 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mmusic chair; Internet Architecture Board; mmusic mailing list;
mmusic chair; RFC Editor
Subject: [MMUSIC] Protocol Action: 'SDP: Session Description Protocol'
to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'SDP: Session Description Protocol '
   <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-26.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact person is Jon Peterson.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-26.txt

Technical Summary
 
This memo defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP). SDP is
intended
for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session
announcement,
session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session initiation.

In particular, this document provides a new version of SDP that
incorporates
fixes and extensions that have been designed in the MMUSIC WG since the
publication of the original SDP specification, RFC2327. This document is
not
SDPng, which fundamentally re-examines the problem space of SDP and
arrives
at a new solution. Rather, this document collects increment fixes to SDP
that are critical to its proper operation, and merit inclusion in the
core
standard.
 
Working Group Summary
 
The MMUSIC working group supported publication of this document.
 
Protocol Quality
 
This document was reviewed by Allison Mankin and Jon Peterson.

RFC-Editor Note

Please append to the start of Section 9:

OLD: 

9.  SDP Grammar

NEW:

9.  SDP Grammar
   
   This section provides a grammar for SDP.  It uses a variant of
   ABNF [4].  In this variant, contrary to section 2.3 of [4], strings
   are *not* case-insensitive, and must match exactly the case
specified.

Security Considerations, last paragraph:

OLD:

   Use of the "k=" field poses a significant security risk, since it
   conveys session encryption keys in the clear.  SDP MUST NOT be used
   to convey key material, unless it can be guaranteed that the channel
   over which the SDP is delivered is both private and authenticated.

NEW:

   Use of the "k=" field poses a significant security risk, since it
   conveys session encryption keys in the clear.  SDP MUST NOT be used
   to convey key material, unless it can be guaranteed that the channel
   over which the SDP is delivered is both private and authenticated.
   Moreover, the k= line provides no way to indicate or negotiate 
   cryptographic key algorithms, and as it provides for only a single 
   symmetric key, rather than separate keys for confidentiality and 
   integrity, its utility is severely limited. Use of the k= line is 
   NOT RECOMMENDED, and any usage of the k= line MUST address these 
   shortcomings.

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

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