Re: [MMUSIC] Feedback requested on requirements

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 19 April 2013 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 2131221F92E8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Kuv7qynn5dsU for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f48.google.com (mail-qe0-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5177821F9298 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 9so734410qea.35 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=VOVSWuZRJogxMf0yGjnnrFsicuUqu0dxM+VqAD2TGFY=; b=keK2DBQitcgixrxFBrTWdZOo7krpLmJ7/xnRDI9FiW0f0cOGraxpeyfwGbNz/+dpsX CwO1CCXAetwnG4gCt50i8UvCh82MTY8UIpmymk2R9Pa3nJo4ztXrfitULL0SembKyxUh c7QpMKDnDsvdrl6ZzrxEHeyJxwTf2e5X/t5DvkDfDg7khvfP86Ip7I5gMSMwugvfEyz2 x9ufpYD8ooxtU0Z6OWIV3jpXh+1jGCEibO61IpNYt0002tBZz1pBag7ZUj4Ghxn84uRO r1bRirX/fl/wcokxjUqstmY0Xsx9gSVfrmWIN9DkOBdNjPmO+IQ3LBiDvLJ7oLzPTGUG cfKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=VOVSWuZRJogxMf0yGjnnrFsicuUqu0dxM+VqAD2TGFY=; b=jk9mEereGGe80WpGOsyUkx4TGDtSFt2aP9AhCuN/aHPQS8VAwb1tIhyrjrawaAsPjL Io1IlPACHI/Dw7xx1psSBG6sKe/2VzNtxfoHWohE3lLGShW8q2MaCxcts6EtDoZjyrQO uppscwuI1/Xvi+izWK6v8dHamYZla0Pth6254W/BN6lqkBcvH0mKc/SEadlOdfAluG5U ckWYmzHt2YdFzoYCvpzJMDeEYdCXvQxvTZJYkaeD1lwbCMYFNg8BHPbustqDx17C4/Ta +t+/rQHIbV7rk4qxh+Ukdp+9G1UwG7ZosQkAnduNKpRavqHTAsnvEnB8dPL2XS6IqVWt OsCw==
X-Received: by 10.49.104.6 with SMTP id ga6mr17024321qeb.51.1366396642818; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.93.28 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201304182048.r3IKmKE12951312@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <201304091539.r39FdjqJ2253833@shell01.TheWorld.com> <516E56BE.2040606@ericsson.com> <201304182048.r3IKmKE12951312@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3=E_M=WgBSq=4f92LnNgJHh9mBvfGGuphH5Euz_QUF2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5d617c848f8c04dabb02eb"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvVFRxS1aFZBjOyLzMntwF70UJ3UoCNYCEuW9OKfkUDkTX44kGav6L+uFCvbg6nPS9B8XymxuAB5zwow66tIrIPAZf4tB5MOjhQezU4DxbwJrvClJjY5q/deOP0szcD4Mk9CbQIIOcuKw/h2eI5sxxiXBtC2dImyGR8RFqpRTRUfecRqNVzQ8PqVRWa/K968IBieLg
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Feedback requested on requirements
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:37:24 -0000

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:

> > From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
> >
> > On 2013-04-09 17:39, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > >    DES F7  If an answerer that does understand the bundle mechanism
> > >       processes an offer that contains a bundle, it must be able to (1)
> > >       accept the bundle and selectively accept or reject each
> > >       constituent RTP session within it, (2) reject the bundle as a
> > >       whole, or (3) reject the bundling and selectively accept or
> reject
> > >       each constituent RTP session as separate RTP sessions.
> >
> > If you with "constituent RTP session within it" where it is a bundle
> > means the RTP media streams resulting from that particular SDP media
> > description (m= block) then I believe I agree with 1).
>
> Ah, yes, I meant "media description" instead of "RTP session".  I'll
> fix that in the next version of the draft.
>
> > When it comes to 2) what makes this different from rejecting each m=
> > block within the bundle?
>
> If we allow bundles that contain zero media descriptions, then it is
> conceptually possible that the bundle is accepted but all of the
> constituent media descriptions are rejected, leaving the bundle
> empty.  I do not see an immediate use for that, but in the long run,
> it is desirable that the mechanism is able to express that.
>

The immediate use is to indicate that BUNDLE is supported by the endpoint,
even if the proposed BUNDLEd descriptions are rejected.

>
> > 3) is required if legacy fallback at all going to be available.
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>