IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 7247A11E8210 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 DhA3bsC2kH2P for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A4C11E8204 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r78IrZEI094157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:53:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5203E92A.4000509@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 13:53:30 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C421C80@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <9AA75667-A597-4EB1-87B4-FA79A2F35C3C@oracle.com> <5203D7E7.4070207@nostrum.com> <E3966F35-5B9A-40F3-BFEF-FE97B6B09B5A@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3966F35-5B9A-40F3-BFEF-FE97B6B09B5A@oracle.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080100090603010806000606"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:54:01 -0000

On 8/8/13 13:21, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/13 07:21, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>> What I think should happen is the UAS should send an SDP answer using port=0 for those same m-lines
>> Why? You're proposing that we remove the mechanism for rejecting media streams.
> Huh?  You either misunderstood my email, or I'm not following your statement above.  I don't believe I'm proposing we remove the mechanism of rejecting media streams.  How/where/when did I propose that?  You lost me.

You're proposing that "the UAS should send an SDP answer using port=0 
for [bundle-only] m-lines", even if it wants to accept those m-lines. In 
other words:

  * If the answerer wants to accept the m-lines, it does so by setting
    the port to 0
  * If the answerer wants to reject the m-lines, it does so by setting
    the port to 0


I'm having a hard time understanding how the recipient of the answer 
distinguishes between port=0 and port=0.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email