Re: [MMUSIC] RID simplification re: PT

[Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am also fine with the proposal, including Magnus's tweak of allowing
> removal of PTs via the m= line and removing RIDs that have an empty set of
> PTs.
>
>
> However, having thought about it some more, I think the following rule
> would be more simple and suffice those implementers seeking sensibility:
>  "If the offer a=rid line contains pt=*, the corresponding answer a=rid
> line must contain pt=*".
>
> In other words, if the offer has "pt=A,B", the answer *can* remove A or B
> on a per-rid level with "pt=A" or "pt=B", but if an offerer does not want
> to support reduction of payload types, it can simply put in "pt=*".​  This
> allows more control of a=rid lines in the answer than the originally
> proposed rule (in the case where an implementation decides to support pt=
> other than pt=*), but it still allows implementations the sensible ease of
> putting "pt=*" in the offer and not allowing reduction, but with a more
> simple rule.
>
> Would that also work?  Or am I missing something?  If I am and that rule
> doesn't work, I still support the original proposal (with Magnus's tweak).
>
>
> And by the way, does the order of the PTs in a RID line even matter?  What
> effect would the answer reordering the PTs even have?
>


The ordering of the PTs in an rid line shouldn't matter .. Not able to
think where it matters