Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Splitting a BUNDLE

On May 14, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>>>> We seem to have an agreement that, when an SDP offer contains an m- 
>>>> line associated with a bundle group, it is ok to leave that m- line 
>>>> outside the bundle group in the SDP Answer.
>>>> 
>>> Now, there has been some discussions about b>
>>> Yes, this is the conclusion I reached. I wish it weren't true. But I 
>>> think there must be a mechanism for the new bundle to be rejected, and 
>>> if it is first proposed in the answer then that isn't possible.
>>> 
>>> IMO this is a rare enough case that suffering another O/A is acceptable.
>> 
>> I agree with Paul here.
> 
> Me too :)
> 
>> Allowing a new group (bundle) to be created in an answer is a much larger deviation from RFC 5888 than allowing an m= line with a zero port to be in a group, and the accept/reject problem can't be solved.
> 
> Note that there are two cases:
> 
> 1) A new bundle is created in the answer
> 
> 2) An m- line is moved from bundle_x in the offer to bundle_y in the answer. bundle_y was also present in the offer, so it is not created by the answerer.
> 
> In my opinion 2) should not be allowed either, as the m- line was not present in bundle_y in the offer.
> 

Agree with you and to say more …

I think that both 1 and 2 should *not* be allowed. There is no use case to drive needing them and it is complicated. That can be done with a new offer if needed. 

> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic