Re: [MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 05 July 2012 17:49 UTC

From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:48:30 +0200
Thread-Topic: SDP grouping in a new offer
Thread-Index: Ac1ao+bIIyNbq2IgR+ayS6qhne1GYQAJW4btAAImCfAAAR2mIA==
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05853405AF418E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2012B443D@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05853405AF418C@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>, <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2012B4DC7@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2012B4DC7@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Raghavendra S (raghs)" <raghs@cisco.com>, "Dinesh V (dinv)" <dinv@cisco.com>, "Toleti Danayya Naidu (naidud)" <naidud@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer
Precedence: list

Hi,

>Thanks, Christer. It does make sense, but is not clear from RFC5888. What would be best way to fix it? File >an errata on RFC5888?

I am not sure anything needs to be fixed. Unless explicitly stated, 3264 applies.

Regards,

Christer


|-----Original Message-----
|From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
|Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:45 PM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); mmusic
|Cc: Raghavendra S (raghs); Toleti Danayya Naidu (naidud); Dinesh V (dinv)
|Subject: RE: SDP grouping in a new offer
|
|Hi,
|
|In my opinion the grouping framework does not change the at-least-N-m=-lines rule.
|
|...which is probably why 5888 doesn't mention it.
|
|Regards,
|
|Christer
|
|________________________________
|From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
|(mperumal) [mperumal@cisco.com]
|Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:47 PM
|To: mmusic
|Cc: Raghavendra S (raghs); Toleti Danayya Naidu (naidud); Dinesh V (dinv)
|Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer
|
|Experts,
|
|RFC3264 states that:
|
|   If an SDP is offered, which is different from the previous SDP, the
|   new SDP MUST have a matching media stream for each media stream in
|   the previous SDP.  In other words, if the previous SDP had N "m="
|   lines, the new SDP MUST have at least N "m=" lines.  The i-th media
|   stream in the previous SDP, counting from the top, matches the i-th
|   media stream in the new SDP, counting from the top.  This matching is
|   necessary in order for the answerer to determine which stream in the
|   new SDP corresponds to a stream in the previous SDP.  Because of
|   these requirements, the number of "m=" lines in a stream never
|   decreases, but either stays the same or increases.  Deleted media
|   streams from a previous SDP MUST NOT be removed in a new SDP;
|   however, attributes for these streams need not be present.
|
|From section 9.1 of RFC5888, it seems the same is applicable with SDP grouping, but is not explicit.
|Should there be matching m-lines in the new offer even with SDP grouping? Does SDP grouping change
|anything w.r.t to the above statements in RFC3264?
|
|thanks,
|Muthu

[MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
Re: [MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer Christer Holmberg
Re: [MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
Re: [MMUSIC] SDP grouping in a new offer Christer Holmberg