Subject: [MMUSIC] Submitted an update to the Traffic Class Label (TCL) attribute

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:49:03 -0600

MMUSIC

I'm letting the WG know that we've updated the trafficclass attribute 
draft to -03.

Abstract:
    This document proposes a new Session Description Protocol (SDP)
    attribute to identify the traffic class a session is requesting
    in its offer/answer exchange.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-03

Here are the changes listed in Appendix 1 from the above URL

A.1  From -02 to -03

    These are the following changes made between the WG -02 version and
    the -03 version:

    - Rearranged a fair amount of text

    - Separated and defined the components into separate subsections.

    - built 5 different tables, one per category, that lists within each
      category - what applications are appropriate as well as what
      adjectives are appropriate for each application within that
      category.

Other stuff we did (not mentioned in the appendix), that we also changed:

- We also rather significantly modified the IANA considerations section,
   including where the bar is to register different types of components.
   I.e., "category" takes a 'PS RFC', the "application" and "adjective" take
   'spec required', but we're thinking of making this only need 'expert
    review'. What does the WG think of this?

- We worked with Paul K on the ABNF, which he likes now.

- created a "partial" admission qualifier for endpoints that send more
   traffic than had capacity admission applied to the session.

- we want to learn about any traffic flows we aren't considering that
   we should be.

- the rearranging made many little things visible that needed fixing,
   adding or deleting.

- what we have *not* addressed is Dan Wing's desire for a label to address
   his sensor traffic, or put another way, should we have a
   periodic/infrequent/sporadic-like non-media 'category'?. This is
   something that makes sense to the authors, but we want to hear from the
   WG on this... we're having problems coming up with a proper category name.

Comments and questions are appreciated.

James/Paul/Subha