IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 5959D21F969F for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 WDhqFCwobU3E for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9338521F95F5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 9E46223F0423; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:28:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.169]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:28:49 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle
Thread-Index: AQHOOeEXkoV4z+UOyUKzFdVVZNLXNJjY1gTQ
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:28:49 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0E6B227E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <516C071B.5050204@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <516C071B.5050204@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:28:51 -0000

Hi,

I stated during the discussion in Orlando that I believe the WG needs to do a deeper dive in to some of the more complex scenarios involving multiple ICE candidates (E.g. Dual Stack, relay candidates etc.).

After the meeting I thought about this some more and submitted http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-mmusic-bundled-ice-candidates-00 which makes a small start on this. I will spend some time over the next couple of weeks thinking this out a bit more and will probably update the draft but any comments from the working group as to whether this is valuable or not would be appreciated.

My thinking is that this might be an extension to the current approach rather than an alternative.

Regards
Andy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Ari Keränen
> Sent: 15 April 2013 14:57
> To: mmusic
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle
> 
> At the Orlando meeting we had a call for consensus (see the minutes of
> the meeting at [1]) on using the current SDP bundle WG document [2] as
> the baseline of the bundle work. That is, using the offer/answer
> exchange as outlined in the draft (subject to clarifying comments made
> during the meeting) and using the port numbers as described in the
> draft.
> 
> The other option would be to not use this as the baseline but to
> continue discussing the alternative methods.
> 
> The show-of-hands at the meeting was around 30 for (going forward with
> the method described in the WG bundle doc) and 4 against. The MMUSIC
> chairs would like to confirm the consensus on this.
> 
> Those who were not present at the meeting to comment on this, please do
> so now.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Ari
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-mmusic
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
> negotiation-03
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email