Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: mandate RTP/RTCP multiplexing?

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <> Thu, 02 May 2013 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3AF21F8673 for <>; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hiumTqJNcl8B for <>; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8968821F976F for <>; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9882; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1367499330; x=1368708930; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=0rhOKUIMecA+ltn66picAJn8/T4ulS4JLHIqGXOI2LI=; b=Zs/8k2Go2hnaiHjpQvPWPh3fmaEPccVW9HrGCmJUjw1FB7d15wM9IHqr H3NLopPS1yBzrro/NniFmEhaztwqv08SRXE4iEOtA45jUy3VZ7Cct+BLx qtBfjuN+cRtPEPfQk8euaEP42cgPm7f8ej/d8Yd3GKh19D+keg3Pf9tr7 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,595,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="205609725"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 02 May 2013 12:55:29 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r42CtS0k010370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 May 2013 12:55:28 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:55:28 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: mandate RTP/RTCP multiplexing?
Thread-Index: Ac5FpkrHryzI/aQNT0iUvXy00zH5hwADtcYAAAPFvoAAAQhZgAA4imSAABwqMXAABklLyA==
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 12:55:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE0F590AD94847029082FDE0DCBFB698ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, Paul Kyzivat <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: mandate RTP/RTCP multiplexing?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 12:55:39 -0000

+1 for MUST in offer and answer.

On May 2, 2013, at 6:01 AM, "Christer Holmberg" <<>> wrote:


Things would certainly work with separate RTCP ports. But, it would mean an additional 5-tuple, with associated ICE etc, which is what we want to avoid by using BUNDLE.

And, as BUNDLE already mandates the SDP offerer to offer rtcp-mux, my suggestion is to mandate the SDP answerer to accept it (assuming it enables BUNDLE, that is).

However, if people have issues with a MUST, a compromise would be “SHOULD, unless some mechanism explicitly requires the usage of separate RTCP ports”… or something like that.



From:<> [] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
Sent: 2. toukokuuta 2013 1:29
To: Paul Kyzivat
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: mandate RTP/RTCP multiplexing?

+1 to mandating rtcp-mux when BUNDLEing.

Otherwise, we have weird situations, such as if you try to BUNDLE a SCTP session and a non-RTCP-mux RTP session together; the former has 1 ICE component, the latter has 2.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Paul Kyzivat <<>> wrote:
On 4/30/13 3:00 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 30 April 2013 10:12, Paul Kyzivat <<>> wrote:
What are the implications of *not* mandating it?

I'm more interesting in learning why someone might want to split it
out.  I can't see any reason for doing that...

...that is, except perhaps for some of the fictitious attacks I invent
when someone suggests that RTCP is a good place for a security
mechanism of one sort or other.

Well, IIUC it was separate before there was a way to combine them.
Why was that? Why hasn't separate RTCP gone away entirely?


mmusic mailing list<>

mmusic mailing list<>