Hi Simo, For the PSTN case the document explain how to construct the m-line PSTN is used based on the ccap using port 9. This is not specified for the ATM case. So if it is not mentioned it should be clear that using ccap for ATM is not specified and need another document Roni From: Simo.Veikkolainen@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Simo.Veikkolainen@xxxxxxxxx] Hello Roni, Please see my answer below prefixed with [SV]. From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx] I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2013–5–29 IETF LC End Date: 2013-6–4 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: 1. I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN nettype it is requires that the ccap will be for the PSTN. What happens if you want to have the ccap nettype as ATM to be used with IP in the c= [SV] If either endpoint does not support ATM, the “c=” line with the ATM address would not get used (either it is not offered, or the Answerer removes that from the SDP configurations). In case both endpoints actually support and want to use ATM as alternative to IP based bearer, the conventions in RFC3108 would need to be followed when crafting the SDP configurations. That said, I haven’t taken a detailed look at RFC3108 to see if the ATM based media can be negotiated using the SDP Capability Negotiation framework and its current extensions. Simo Nits/editorial comments: |