IETF RFC 2327 PDF
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):||11 June 2014|
|PDF File Size:||6.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Recipients of this session description are instructed to only receive media. B sends an updated description to A.
The text also says to ignore unknown atributes, but that assumes you’ve been able to parse the attribute name. Current information, if any, about IPR issues:. Clear description of the referenced document: Please find the last draft here: Monday, June 04, 6: I agree such issues should be documented. The following requirements keywords as used in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC It seems like RFC section 10 Summary of changes since RFC should have mentioned this issue, and others where complying with would make you at least in theory not interoperable with RFC Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed: The approach taken herein is to send pure SDP.
If I have one stream which carries optional ‘repair’ data for another stream, and I want to send them on two separate multicast groups, or two separate streams to an RTSP client, how would I indicate that ‘this media stream’ is the repair data for ‘that media stream’ in SDP? This RFC has been in existence since April And why was a name chosen that might break backwards compatibility? Unless separate permission is granted, modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by the authors, any organization or project to which the authors belong, or the XMPP Standards Foundation.
HTML This document in other formats: Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:.
The following XMPP stanzas could be used to initiate a voice call. SDP is designed to be extensible to support new media types and formats. The second one is used to specify in which language it is written alternate texts in multiple 3227 may be carried in the protocol, and selected automatically by the user agent according ieff user preferences.
Other 232 any supplementary information: At least one of them is. Limitation of Liability In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort including negligencecontract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts or agreed to in writing, shall the XMPP Standards Foundation or any author of this Specification be liable for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising from, out of, or in connection with the Specification or the implementation, deployment, or other use of the Specification including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losseseven if the XMPP Standards Foundation iwtf such author ieetf been advised of the possibility of such damages.
There might be similar semantics for scalable coding. Problems with RFC vs RFC ,and between and Christian, The text, as with much of the text in this document, gives the impression that there are meaningful “RFC implementations”, and that the compatibility issues are due to RFC changing the specification.
Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document:. Therefore the use of attribute names containing “-” is problematic for RFC implementations as several examples of attribute names containing “-” rtc registered prior to the definition of RFC Ketf revision of H.
Thursday, March 01, 1: In reality, RFC is self-contradictory and unclear in a number of places, and useful implementations rely on a large number of extensions and interpretations of the standard.
In both cases, each textual field in the protocol which are not interpreted symbolically by the protocol itself, will be interpreted as opaque 227, but rendered to the user or application with the values indicated in the last occurrence of the charset and sdplang in the current Media section, or otherwise their last value in the Session section.
RFC – SDP: Session Description Protocol
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed: They don’t expect to support until the end ofif it doesn’t slip Names are only unique within the associated frc construct, i. Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document: 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: It is the responsibility of the XMPP recipient or translating gateway to unescape these restricted characters for processing.
Below is a sample session description rtc RFC This session is specified to last for two hours using NTP timestamps, with a connection address which indicates the address clients must connect to or — when a multicast address is provided, as it is here — subscribe to specified as IPv4 A session is described by a series of fields, one per line.
Wednesday, February 28, 3: RFC was published in April, Obsoletes RFCs; Errata exist.
ITU-T work programme
Hi, Another difference between and is that some of the media types were removed frombased on claims they aren’t used anywhere. RFC was published in July, 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 Ieetf Session Description Protocol, April 2.
Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process. Without going into a case-by-case analysis of those changes, I dunno if there would be much value in highlighting “-” in attribute names; highlighting it might cause some readers of the errata to assume that was the only change, which could make RFC ‘compliance’ worse if that was thought by some implementor to be the only substantive change to the grammar.
It is a standards-track document and is rf in the “Proposed standard” state. Should we suggest people stay away from non-alpha-numerics in attribute names? All RFCs always remain available on-line.
Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane.