Subject: [MMUSIC] Do we need to update in time 4566bis?

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:23:03 +0100

<as an individual>

Hi all,

You know we are revising RFC 4566. So far, the effort has been in bug fixing.

The first SDP version was published as RFC 2327 in 1998 (i.e., 14 years 
ago), and was then revised as RFC 4566 in 2006.

Lots of things have happened since then. We have SDP offer answer, 
Grouping, QoS, ATM, Bandwidth modifiers, TCP media, SDES, comeida, 
labels, BFCP, FEC, ICE, CapNeg, and many other that are in the pipe.

 From the point of view of a reader who takes 4566 (or its current 
4566bis incarnation), I think it will be difficult for her or him to 
understand a protocol that ignores those other extensions. For example, I 
recently post another e-mail where there is an apparent contradiction 
between 4566 and ICE (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09089.html ).

So, I was wondering if time has come to make not a bug correction in 
4566bis, but also put that RFC in context with the other extensions that 
exist. This may include:

- Add minor extensions to the core document, similarly to what we did 
with IPv6 support (i.e., 4566 = 2327 + 3266). I don't know which of these 
extensions make sense to include, this would be an exercise to do, but 
let me give you one potential example: RFC 4574, the SDP "label" 
attribute is a 6 pages RFC.

- Adding references to extensions, when it makes sense. For example, ICE 
should be referred somewhere (see my previous post regarding the "o" 
line). I guess capneg could be also mentioned, perhaps others.

I know this is a bigger effort than anticipated, but the result could 
really help newcomers to this world.

Now, it is your turn to express your opinions. Please do it.

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain