Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 03 May 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 5C62D21F9661 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.308
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 ZA9uDTO1j6fx for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B3C21F96B1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 07:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id XPJu1l0031swQuc51SvSU1; Fri, 03 May 2013 14:55:26 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id XSvS1l0073ZTu2S3bSvSpv; Fri, 03 May 2013 14:55:26 +0000
Message-ID: <5183CFDD.90203@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 10:55:25 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36B485@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36B485@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1367592926; bh=5SuxTnVuZjsyL/aws9gsPWg2+33axf6yL8Sbw0+u/xY=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=gf4oNe6SgyEcfG/9uGAP1hXtaDPMgtosdzWefZjfOmQ8Dzaw2SIXwT+2AiEIRipCs toCbGT2NY+inQspjKYDfpl/EwnUnEU+krQ3SMlP751WoYF6jB2n1cl1vTwmG6YmrN5 UaaWKq2RW0ISLf5TtO7gTKzLzfiTyBqsQ9907tBJpBioCkZlkuXGbKASmvb3Hs7H0M tKbN71Qs7mHyly4nU5I3Wg68mR8sgo29F1uEN0LPGZdG12WzAePVeIpvTMeG0biKYf ufdVu/uN91nYe8oykMvRMfLhYHp8hZmve4KibKHIsTi7T7Sd5iuL74oMkSjI2eZsz1 kn7kxm77nzaxA==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
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: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:26:45 -0000

On 5/3/13 8:53 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In order to try to close issues on BUNDLE, based on the discussions
> we’ve had, I intend to update the BUNDLE draft based on the following
> assumptions:
>
> 1.We mandate usage of rtcp-mux when BUNDLE is used.

Are you going to include the possibility of bundling non-RTP m-lines?
(Needed if we are to include DTLS/SCTP.)

If so, then of course the use of rtcp-mux only applies to RTP m-lines.

(Of course, if only one DTLS/SCTP line can be included, a bundle without 
RTP is not very interesting. But it doesn't hurt to make this ready for 
future bundling of other things.)

> 2.SDP m- lines with a zero port value MUST NOT be put inside a BUNDLE
> group (not in an offer, nor in an answer). There will be a note
> indicating that, due to this, the number of m- lines associated with a
> BUNDLE group may differ between the offer and the associated answer.
> There will also be a note indicating that this is due to RFC 5888, in
> case people later start to wonder where the “MUST NOT” comes from.
>
> Please indicate if you OBJECT to any of these assumptions.

Aside from the above comment I have no objections.

	Thanks,
	Paul