IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override?

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Tue, 19 March 2013 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C84421F856E; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_BACKHAIR_55=1, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I1-TlMHC9BCg; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF4821F855A; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5853; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363666747; x=1364876347; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=m3S1vU7QO9mraHl+fuS23/CnhSAni1VntemfZ+wo9zw=; b=L4Wd7OzyngHSwjqbbuol5QCh01Wa6YLo2WDxL/VNSwLDSBAC/FWyPdLh r3PFRHh8w0CLtvupKl2Znr6OFn2L4Fj+nTMGFGRfua461xz/VJ5XQjOYr L/RsUVcadVMqtHcNb3ZvzGX+r/6LJMtc0UTsJh8du3PKLGArByCLbbCIf I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFADXmR1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABDhCS+M4JugWMWdIImAQQnBl4BKlYmAQQBGogMsjKQEokDhVyDF2EDp2CCfQ2CKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,870,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="188937431"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2013 04:19:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2J4J6fY023184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:19:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.51]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:19:06 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Is bundle just a port override?
Thread-Index: Ac4kHg5Y6RAUfNpKQfaYxrqiVMYCTQ==
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:19:06 +0000
Message-ID: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6942C3@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.248.224]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6942C3xmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:19:09 -0000

Does bundle imply anything beyond a simple port override of the m-line port? If not, then why not just directly signal the port override in an attribute without any grouping semantics?

Offer to mux audio and video on the same port:
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0
m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 31
a=port 10000
i=I really want 10000, but lied on the m-line for fear of confusing you. Confused yet?

Answer supports the port override attribute and agrees to mux audio and video:
m=audio 40000 RTP/AVP 0
m=video 40000 RTP/AVP 31
a=port 40000
...so audio and video ports are 10000<->40000.

Answer supports the port override attribute but doesn't want to demux on his end:
m=audio 40000 RTP/AVP 0
m=video 40002 RTP/AVP 31
a=port 40002
...so audio ports are 10000<->40000 and video ports are 10000<->40002.

Answer doesn't support the port override attribute, or doesn't want either end to mux:
m=audio 40000 RTP/AVP 0
m=video 40002 RTP/AVP 31
...so audio ports are 10000<->40000 and video ports are 10002<->40002.

Either end can re-offer without lies about ports on the m-line after confirming the peer is not confused by muxing, if they want to avoid confusing intermediaries.

Has this approach been tried yet? Dismissed?

Mo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email