Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06

Thanks Christer, I actually like the new text better as it's more flexible,
as you point out. Thumbs up from me!

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:46 AM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Roman/Justin, can you live with the suggestion based on Paul's comment,
> i.e., replace:
>
> "Therefore, the  3PCC  controller SHOULD rewrite the subsequent BUNDLE
> Offer into a valid
>   initial BUNDLE Offer, following the procedures in Section 7.2, before it
>   forwards the BUNDLE Offer to a UA.  In the rewritten BUNDLE Offer the
>   3PCC controller will set the port value to zero (and include an SDP
>   'bundle-only' attribute) for each "m=" section within the BUNDLE group,
>   excluding the offerer-tagged "m=" section."
>
> ...with:
>
> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller SHOULD take actions to mitigate this
>   problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid
>   initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE
>   offer to a UA."
>
> If not, please go into compromise mode and try to suggest something that
> would make anyone happy. I really don't want the work to get delayed
> because of this.
>
> The IMPORTANT thing is to point out the PROBLEM - one endpoint sends a
> subsequent offer, and another endpoints expects an initial offer -and to
> give an EXAMPLE on how it CAN be solved. It's fine if someone wants to
> solve the problem in some other way, as long as it works...
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: tiistai 30. marraskuuta 2021 18.24
> To: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in
> draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
> Christer,
>
> On 11/29/21 2:00 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Since the issue is introduced by BUNDLE, I think we should say more
> > than simply "the 3PCC has to do something".
> >
> > I am fine to change the current procedure from a SHOULD to an example,
> > but I do think we should include some guidance.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > "Therefore, the 3PCC controller needs to take actions to mitigate this
> > problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid
> > initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE
> > offer to a UA."
> >
> > (I have no strong opinion on whether we use "3GPP controller needs to"
> > or "3GPP controller SHOULD".)
>
> That works for me. My problem with the earlier text was that it described
> *a* solution as if it was *the* solution that would solve the problem, when
> there are potential problems it doesn't solve.
>
> Changing it to be one example improves it.
>
> There could be a longer discussion about what kinds of things could go
> wrong and how to mitigate each. But that may be overkill.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>