Re: Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, >>To be clear, are you talking about clarifying text in _this_ draft, or elsewhere? > >Christer is talking about section 12.2 of the draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp. As the language stands right >now, it is not incorrect, but is slightly confusing, since it is talking about default candidates for all ICE >related offer/answer exchanges. After ICE nomination process is completed, there is only one candidate >left, so there is no default. In session descriptions that describe the session after ICE nomination is complete >only one candidate is present, so there is typically no confusion about what goes into the m= line, but this is >not spelled out in the draft. I will submit the PR and Christer can merge and resubmit the draft when he is back. Thanks! Also note that this is something that shall be clear in draft-ice-sip-sdp, because it's not SCTP-SDP specific. But, that's a separate issue. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic