Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE TEXT: Answerer Procedures (29th May)

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 6.4.6.  Removing a media description from a BUNDLE group
> 
>   When generating the SDP Answer, if the Answerer wants to remove an
>   "m=" line from a BUNDLE group (without rejecting the "m=" line),it
>   MUST NOT include the "m=" line in a BUNDLE group.  In addition, the
>   SDP Answer MUST not add its local bundle address to the "m=" line.
> 
>   An Answerer MUST NOT, in the SDP Answer, remove an "m=" line from a
>   BUNDLE group, unless the "m=" line had unique address information in
>   the associated SDP Offer.
> 
>   NOTE: The reason for the restriction above is that, if the "m=" line
>   would be removed from the BUNDLE group, the address information would
>   be identical to the "m=" lines remaining in the BUNDLE group.
> 
>   OPEN: The decision for allowing a media description with port zero
>   values inside a BUNDLE group is pending on update for RFC 5888.
> 
> I thought we had agreed to no bundle splitting.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by “splitting”, but this is not about moving an m- line from one BUNDLE group to another BUNDLE group, but to move it outside an BUNDLE group all together. People wanted to allow that in the case where the Offer contains different ports, but if you disagree we need to discuss it further.
> 
> Regards,

One case that is brought up for this is a conference bridge where the voice and video go to different IP addresses. The browser makes a offer to the conference bridge and can offer all the voice and video in one bundle, but the answer from the bridge keeps all the video in the bundle but puts the audio outside of any bundle. It did not split a bundle into two bundles but for all the things offered in the bundle, the answer said yes to some and no to others about them being in the bundle. 

I don't think Christer or I was thinking of that as splitting but agree we never really sorted out what the term means