Re: Unknown key shares in MMUSIC

On 18 March 2017 at 03:24, Roman Shpount <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I could accept tls-id.  But if tls-id and dtls-id are the same and
>> have similar semantics, then one attribute makes more sense.  Using a
>> "tls"-named attribute in DTLS isn't going to cause any real problems.
>
>
> The reason I am thinking different names can make sense is interaction of
> dtls-id/tls-id with new connection establishment. The change in dtls-id
> values is used to signal new DTLS association establishment. In case of
> TLS-over-TCP, new connection establishment is signaled using
> a=connection:new/existing SDP attribute. Do you want tls-id overwrite
> connection attribute? Only allow to change tls-id when  a=connection:new is
> present? I understand that tls-id and dtls-id carry similar meaning in your
> newly proposed extension. Are they going to carry the same meaning in new
> connection negotiation?

I was thinking that tls-id would apply in both situations, but only
carry the "new connection" semantics for DTLS.