Re: [MMUSIC] Another bundling proposal - Christer's comments

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
> 
> >> Second, you use the non-bundle m- lines for codec negotiation etc. 
> >> But, previously, when MMT was discussed, I believe that people 
> >> indicated that they do not want to "refer" to other m- lines from the 
> >> MMT m- line. Instead,  the information should be explicitly provided 
> >> in the MMT m- line (which is the reason why the SDP size gets pretty 
> >> big with MMT, as most information is duplicated).
> >
> > I've heard that mentioned before, but I've never seen the argument
> > in favor of it.  Can someone tell me what it is, or provide a
> > pointer?
> 
> It was indicated in a meeting (at the moment I can't remember which
> meeting, though), but I never checked whether it was added to the
> minutes. I guess it will be on audio recording.
> 
> But, as far as I remember, there were never much discussion about
> it. It was an open issue on one of my slides, and people simply
> indicated support for adding explicit information, rather the
> referencing.

If this desire exists, I'd like to hear technical reasons why it is
desired.  Adding payload types to the bundle media description makes
it more difficult to ensure that a non-supporting answerer rejects the
bundle media description.

Dale