Re: [MMUSIC] DECISION: Offerer assigning address:port to multiple m- lines before Answerer has selected that address:port as BUNDLE address?

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 26 June 2013 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 8ECC211E80E2 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 AGXC1nAPXxJ3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BEC21E8155 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sz501l0021wpRvQ531lFrF; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:45:15 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id t1lF1l00S3ZTu2S3e1lFcv; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:45:15 +0000
Message-ID: <51CAF06A.3080302@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:45:14 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3BB7D0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3BB7D0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1372254315; bh=F5CLZf/sJdWXWFkTbCWTU6mHPkoUvF5xL3fcR9vwRe8=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=gthc+vuEC1OIGcRbuEOof6Rae/tmCNm6m9cpbNxull9zkBh4L4Yd1F0NeEsivmUea Nd2KdWOmOLT7qwE9rn4K44qXvgdlV9xpKuqGjyegANb0jkBi1a8fu8feM+HAa+H4zP wmtQxziiV+Izmant5jZZN63qC1FhTKdJOpGBpQqqw7a7BO4m8iwdjOzlgmuPSBGaIa JzmauMYMZ0HJ2akqpEZR3XCOABU8EkqKVkgdyOc23MoaGKkQbQJ3AWfwWaat5YnBW3 lHtjq7NoUm+/2ovMAqJEOHmEVlcwbRa9IeQw2SnxPdFclkDyidLozLXfSfHxvLpEXJ yMp6CCBTv5LZA==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] DECISION: Offerer assigning address:port to multiple m- lines before Answerer has selected that address:port as BUNDLE address?
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:45:23 -0000

Q5: yes

Q6: yes. I don't expect this to be used all the time. But there will be 
cases when the offerer has enough understanding of the context in which 
it is used that doing so is worthwhile in order to save effort in 
session setup. Doing so comes with the obligation to cope with the 
consequences if the assumptions are wrong and the answerer doesn't 
support bundle.

This is also a matter of acknowledging the real world. If we ban this, 
it is reasonable to expect that those that want it will do so anyway.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 6/26/13 3:33 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BUNDLE currently specifies that an Offerer is not allowed to assign an
> address:port to multiple m- lines before that address:port has been
> selected as BUNDLE address by the Answerer.
>
> Paul indicated that such rule is ineffective, as it always requires two
> O/A transactions (one for the negotiation, and another one for the sync)
> in order to negotiate/re-negotiate a BUNDLE address.
>
> Instead, Paul suggested that an Offerer should be allowed to assign a
> new address:port to multiple m- lines before the Answerer has selected
> that address:port as a BUNDLE address.
>
> Paul also suggested that an Offerer should be allowed to do this before
> the Answerer has sent an SDP Answer, indicating support of BUNDLE.
>
> *Q5*: Within a SIP session, once both endpoints have indicated support
> of BUNDLE, do we allow an Offerer to assign an address:port to multiple
> m- lines, before the Answerer has selected that address:port as a BUNDLE
> address?
>
> *Q6*: If Q5, do we allow an Offerer to assign an address:port to
> multiple m- lines before the Answerer has, within the SIP session,
> indicated that it supports BUNDLE? A typical example would be assigning
> an address:port to multiple m- lines already in the initial SDP Offer
> for a SIP session.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>