Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 6/18/21 12:28 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> I was looking for some sort of language or note similar to 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8839#section-7.5 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8839#section-7.5>. This note 
> should say that when the endpoint receives a mid-dialog re-INVITE that 
> contains no offer, it MUST use the rules for generating the initial SDP 
> offers 

It isn't quite that simple. There are additional rules for mid-dialog 
offers. In particular payload types may not be recycled for use with a 
different codec configuration than it was previously used for. I think 
there are other limitations along the same vein.

There could be something with a similar spirit.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-02.html#section-7.2 
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-02.html#section-7.2>). 
> In some sense, we are preserving RFC8843 behavior for subsequent offers 
> if these offers are generated due to a mid-dialog re-INVITE that 
> contains no offer.
> 
> Best Regards,
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:17 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 6/18/21 2:52 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>      > Hi Roman,
>      >
>      > Regarding offers for 3PPC, I think sending an initial offer needs
>     to be
>      > a generic O/A rule. I don’t think we can have SDP
>     extension-specific rules.
> 
>     I agree this *ought* to be a generic recommendation. But I don't think
>     it is. So I think it would be helpful to say it in this document.
> 
>     Note that this would be a recommendation (MAY). It can't really be
>     mandatory, since for an initial offer the offerer has almost complete
>     discretion.
> 
>              Thanks,
>              Paul
> 
>      > Regards,
>      >
>      > Christer
>      >
>      > Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>>
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > *From:* Roman Shpount <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      > *Sent:* Thursday, June 17, 2021 11:40:50 PM
>      > *To:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Christer
>      > Holmberg <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      > *Cc:* mmusic <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      > *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00
>      > Hi Christer,
>      >
>      > I have reviewed the document and document changes look good in
>     removing
>      > the inconsistencies with JSEP.
>      >
>      > One question that I do have is related to third-party call
>     control and
>      > generating offers in response to INVITE with no SDP body. This is
>     not
>      > covered anywhere in this document. In order to work correctly thes
>      > offers should be constructed the same ways as initial offers with
>      > separate addresses and ports allocated for all m= lines which are
>     not
>      > bundle-only and port zero and bundle-only attribute set on all the
>      > bundle-only m= lines.
>      >
>      > Best Regards,
>      > _____________
>      > Roman Shpount
>      >
>      >
>      > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:09 PM Flemming Andreasen
>      > <fandreas=[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Greetings MMUSIC
>      >
>      >     This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
>      >
>      >
>     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt
>     <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt>
>      >   
>       <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt>>
>      >
>      >     as Proposed Standard. Please note that changes in the
>     document are
>      >     limited to what was agreed to at IET110 for JSEP alignment
>     plus any
>      >     verified erratas. Please review and provide any comments you may
>      >     have on the document by Tuesday, June 1, 2021. Comments should be
>      >     sent to the document authors and the MMUSIC WG list. If you
>     review
>      >     the document but do not have any comments, please send a note to
>      >     that effect as well.
>      >
>      >     Thanks
>      >
>      >     -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
>      >     _______________________________________________
>      >     mmusic mailing list
>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>
>      >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>>
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > mmusic mailing list
>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>
>      >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     mmusic mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>