The Session Description Protocol (SDP) is a format for describing streaming media communications parameters. The IETF published the original specification as an IETF Proposed Standard in April , and subsequently published a revised specification as an IETF Proposed Standard as RFC in July . ” SDP: Session Description Protocol (RFC )”. ITU-T A.5 justification information for referenced document IETF RFC ( ) in draft H. It was not available in the previous SDP defined by RFC 4. Status of approval: Normative. 3. Justification for the specific reference: IETF RFC specifies SDP: Session Description Protocol wich is tested in Q
|Published (Last):||4 August 2011|
|PDF File Size:||5.61 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
All RFCs always remain available on-line. Other useful ietd describing the “Quality” of the document: Session Description Protocol 2. Untenable, as this isn’t the only attribute name affected by a strict parser. The ‘from’ addresses will usually be added by the XMPP server or relevant gateway, but are shown here for the sake of clarity. Should we suggest people stay away from non-alpha-numerics in attribute names?
IETF – mmusic – Comparison of SDP variants between RFC and RFC
The text also says to ignore unknown atributes, but that assumes you’ve been able to parse the attribute name. Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:. Other 2372 any supplementary information:.
At least one of them is. Might want to ping the authors first to make sure that was their intent. Current information, if any, about IPR issues:. The following requirements keywords as used in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC The revision of H.
Better that these sorts of issues are documented.
In reality, RFC is gfc and unclear 3227 a number of places, and useful implementations rely on a large number of extensions and interpretations of the standard.
I agree such issues should be documented. RFC6. Therefore the use of attribute names containing “-” is problematic for RFC implementations as several examples of attribute names containing “-” were registered prior to the definition of RFC Session Description Protocol, April 2.
If the stop time is 0 then the session is “unbounded. I guess those who have implemented the drafts wouldn’t be happy though: Clear description of the referenced document: Current information, if any, about IPR issues: The fields present in their values are considered in the protocol as opaque strings, they are used as identifiers, just like paths in an URL or filenames in a file system: Wednesday, February 28, 3: Feedback Contact Us Accessibility.
It IS used in H.
XEP A Transport for Initiating and Negotiating Sessions (TINS)
Developers desiring similar functionality are advised to implement the protocol that supersedes this one XEP Clear description of the referenced document:. Justification for the specific reference: The set of properties and parameters are often called a session profile.
Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process. Hello Dan, Are you referring to additional differences between the grammar of attribute names or differences between the RFC and RFC syntax in general?
237 The approach taken herein is to send pure SDP. SDP is designed to be extensible to support new media types and formats. Hi, Another issue is the “control” media type. In reply to a request, the receiver MUST send zero or more replies, with the value of the ‘method’ attribute set to a value of “result” and the value of the ‘code’ attribute set to one of the valid SIP response codes as specified in Section 21 of RFC The degree of stability or maturity of the document:.
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:. SDP does not deliver any media by itself but is used between endpoints for negotiation of media type, format, and all associated properties. A session is described by a series of fields, one per line. BYE — Used by either side of the conversation to terminate the transaction. This should be noted via http: There might be similar. Was this issue known before it became an RFC?
Search everywhere only in this topic. McCanne, “vat – Xbased audio teleconferencing tool” vat manual page, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Permissions Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this specification the “Specification”to make use of the Specification without restriction, including without limitation the rights to implement the Specification in a software program, deploy the Specification in a network service, and copy, modify, merge, publish, translate, distribute, sublicense, or sell copies of the Specification, and to permit persons to whom the Specification is furnished to do so, subject to the condition that the foregoing copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Specification.
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed: There is no general-purpose way to ensure that media protocol connections are associated with the in-band TINS conversation.
Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended. Values are typically a UTF-8 encoding.
Comparison of SDP variants between RFC 4566 and RFC 2327
This document has been retracted 3227 the author s. SDP is used for describing multimedia communication sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and parameter negotiation. There’s no discussion of the compatibility impact of this. I guess this is somewhat like scalable coding, in which I would need to say ‘this stream’ is an enhancement, and builds on ‘that stream’.