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

Author: Yozuru Dozshura
Country: Slovenia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 20 August 2006
Pages: 292
PDF File Size: 19.48 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.11 Mb
ISBN: 196-9-80732-335-1
Downloads: 31029
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kezahn

Session Description Protocol

Standards track RFC July Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document:. Other for any supplementary information: Oetf Wing dwing ; [hidden email] ; [hidden email] ; [hidden email] Subject: Such an implementation would also reject: SDP does not deliver any media by itself but is used between endpoints for negotiation of media type, format, and all associated properties.

I can only expect that was the intent, yes. Discussion on other xmpp. Thursday, March 01, 1: Add a caveat like: McCanne, “vat – Xbased audio teleconferencing tool” vat manual page, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Five amendments and a technical corrigendum have been published up to now.

Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:. Hi, Another difference 3227 and is that some of the media types gfc removed frombased on claims they aren’t used anywhere. And how will this be handled for the next attribute named?

Monday, June 04, Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed: Below is a sample session description from RFC Recipients of this session description are instructed to only receive media. The ‘from’ addresses will usually be added by the XMPP server or relevant gateway, but are shown here for the sake of clarity.


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. The degree of stability or maturity of the document: The following requirements keywords as used in this document are to be interpreted as dfc in RFC Would itf following text capture your clarification?

Hello Colin, Thanks for the extra information. rffc

RFC – SDP: Session Description Protocol

I think it’s too late for such encouragement. Please find the last draft here: This was done to ensure that Albrecht’s work was captured. In both cases, each textual field in the protocol which are not interpreted symbolically by the protocol itself, will be interpreted as opaque strings, 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.

Current information, if any, about IPR issues:.

If I have one stream which carries optional ‘repair’ data for another stream, and I want to send them itf 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? Sure, but there’s still an issue here, or at least something needing clarification: By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.


Older versions of this specification might be available at http: Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document:.

Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document: This session is originated by the user ‘jdoe’, at IPv4 address Feedback Contact Us Accessibility. All these offsets are relative to the start rff, they are not cumulative.

Comparison of SDP variants between RFC 4566 and RFC 2327

Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process. Any explicit references within that 227 document should also be listed:. Tuesday, June 05, 8: Clear description of the referenced document: Relationship with other existing or emerging documents: Something along the lines of: Names are only unique within the associated syntactic construct, i.

RFC was published in April, SDP is used for describing multimedia communication sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and parameter negotiation. Current information, if any, about IPR issues: In this case, the text would seem to override the BNF, at least for X. Other for any supplementary information: 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.

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 If the weekly 1-hour session was repeated every Sunday for full one year, i.