A quick review of Section 5 of this document:
- I think it is a good idea to clearly indicate which SDP attributes are
newly created and which ones are reused from other RFCs. I therefore
recommend to add the following sentences somewhere to the corresponding
sections:
5.3:
RFC 4145 [RFC4145] defines the "setup" attribute whose purpose is to
indcate which of the end points should initiate the connection
establishment. This document reuses the "setup" attribute to similarly
indicate which end point initiates the DCCP-UDP connection establishment.
5.4:
RFC 5245 [RFC5245] defines the "candidate" attribute whose purpose is to
provide one of many possible candidate addresses for communication. This
document reuses the "candidate" attribute to indicate native or
encapsulated candidate addresses
- In 5.2 last paragraph, I am missing some normative statements, for example:
If RTCP is multiplexed with RTP, endpoints MUST encode the DCCP port used
for RTCP in the "rtcp" attribute specified in RFC 3605 [RFC3605]. An SDP
offerer MAY indicate its willingnes to multiplex RTP and RTCP onto a
single DCCP port by adding an "rtcp-mux" attribute as specified in RFC
5761 [RFC5761]. If the answer also includes the "rtcp-mux" attribute (as
per RFC 5761 [RFC5761]), then RTP and RTCP are multiplexed onto a single
DCCP port, otherwise separate DCCP ports are used for RTP and RTCP. In
each case, only a single UDP port is used for the DCCP-UDP encapsulation.
- I didn't find any description of the "dccp-service-code". However, it
is written in the examples in Section 5.5. Is this a leftover from a
previous version of the document?
- I agree with your comment at the end of Section 5.5 indicating that an
example using ICE would be beneficial.
- Section 7.3. There are two references pointing to Section 5.1 in the
document, but they should actually point to Section 5.2
- I think the following references should be made normative: ICE-TCP,
RFC3264, RFC 4566, RFC5245, RFC5761
BR,
Miguel
On 15/06/2011 9:42, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
Hi,
In DCCP WG we are soon concluding draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap ("Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Encapsulation for NAT Traversal (DCCP-UDP)"). This draft has parts related to the work done in MMUSIC (especially Section 5), and it was presented in the MMUSIC meeting in last IETF. The authors have modified the text based on the input received, and we are now looking for volunteer(s) from MMUSIC to review whether the new text (mostly in Section 5) looks ok, before moving forward with the draft.
The draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-08
- Pasi
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
