Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 E156511E8142 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 O7iXEvABpLIu for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C226211E8200 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r78HdvwD086082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:39:57 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5203D7E7.4070207@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 12:39:51 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C421C80@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <9AA75667-A597-4EB1-87B4-FA79A2F35C3C@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <9AA75667-A597-4EB1-87B4-FA79A2F35C3C@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:40:18 -0000

On 8/8/13 07:21, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> What I think should happen is the UAS should send an SDP answer using port=0 for those same m-lines

Why? You're proposing that we remove the mechanism for rejecting media 
streams. Consider the example I put up during the meeting: you have a 
regular audio m-line and a bundle-only video m-line. The other end wants 
to decline the video. You've just taken away the tool for doing so.

There'd better be a heck of an upside to removing this critical protocol 
mechanism. So far, the upside you've described is "Hadriel thinks it's 
not aesthetically pleasing," which doesn't seem to be a very practical 
consideration. Is there a technically compelling argument for your position?

/a