Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle offer with different ports - where to expect media?

Paul Kyzivat <> Mon, 20 May 2013 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5835321F9377 for <>; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.037
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7lbRrWX1O38U for <>; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:228]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9715E21F937B for <>; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id eD4w1l0091ZXKqc5FF94JP; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:09:04 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([]) by with comcast id eF941l00P3ZTu2S3hF94Tg; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:09:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:09:03 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emil Ivov <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20121106; t=1369062544; bh=M14jZgBwLa/NZxU8JRJSpjbI96pMcPpjNByjc0SOGsA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=JVXtPJrSZf1FaEwOugE7hMs2rktA/R1WcruWEF1BEQT6Z9zvth6M7dgjk5QyK0Pfb 9T2OFdYQbHU90s6ijFOLthgqV3jxdQlXxMGV3VCdoV8huIpGVeOYwNt1pc4nfv44DE jPUvLiGCIKm3gIHnBaG1GNtneG1MPCU9gy2Yp3wFd4k7ik8MteyIC4O9vrVSe+3H+o gbe99j+XtGUWdpO7deYnAE0ia+ANP60Lrc/dCxC3989oqoTUToJUprx1QeEzeOptsb qjjUlK/qzKUtvlOIUKBxwNvFDudD+2zlxXh/kaMXp8I7CN8XXN8oZSK2CPBgpI0ANi tjzZFtlQhp+FA==
Cc: mmusic <>, Christer Holmberg <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle offer with different ports - where to expect media?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:09:12 -0000

On 5/20/13 10:51 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> Hey Christer,
> On 20.05.13, 17:16, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>>>> What happens when the offerer knows the answerer has bundle
>>>>> support, sends all m-lines with the same port, then the
>>>>> answerer splits the first line away from the bundle? Would the
>>>>> answerer still send everything to the same port?
>>>> We discussed this week,
>>> Yes, sorry, I didn't follow this closely.
>>>> and the outcome (at least my read of it :) was that the answerer
>>>> is not allowed to split any m- lines away from the bundle in this
>>>> case. Instead the answerer will have to send a new offer for the
>>>> split, allowing new ports to be negotiated at both ends.
>>> OK, so shouldn't the same thing happen in the case with different
>>> ports?
>> I suggested that it should never be allowed to split an m- line from
>> a bundle group in an answer, but others had other opinions.
> I don't see how we could allow it in one case and disallow it in the
> other. The only difference between the two cases is how informed the
> offerer is about the answerers bundle support capabilities and I don't
> really understand why this would influence the decision to allow
> splitting bundles one way or the other.

It is a different case because the same port *can't* both be used as the 
bundle port and a port for an unbundled m-line.

>> HOWEVER, it would still not help in the case where the 1st m- line is
>> rejected.
> Well, how about looking at it this way: the offerer specifies a bundle
> port in the first m=line. This also happens to be the port for the first
> media line but the two are different things and just happen to have the
> same value for reasons related to syntax and convenience.
> A bundle supporting answerer should understand this. After receiving the
> offer that answerer has learned the bundle port number. Rejecting the
> first m=line in the answer does not change this.

There are many reasons that an answerer may reject an m-line.
It is *possible* that it is rejecting it because it has a problem with 
the address (c=) for the m-line in the offer. If so, then if you insist 
on using it as the bundle address, even if the m-line is refused, then 
there is no way for the answerer to refuse it.

(*Why* it would have a problem is an open question. Maybe its IPv6 and 
the answerer can't use it, or maybe its an FQDN and it can't be 
resolved. I realize this is unlikely. But making the assumption that the 
address must be acceptable to the answerer is IMO not a good idea.)

> Of course the answer would come with the first m=line having a 0 port
> but the offerer would then just learn the bundle port number at the
> first m=line with a non-zero port.

I presume you must have a motivation for wanting to go this way.
Are you thinking this will simplify the implementation? What do you 
think you can avoid doing my making this assumption?


> Subsequent offers and answers would all use that same m=line for the
> bundle port.
> Does this make sense?
> Emil
>> Regards,
>> Christer