IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DECISION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 13 November 2013 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 D540C11E810D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:14:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.258
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.258 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 WDEF48tvwFze for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2078711E8119 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id p0QK1m0081swQuc537EC2J; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:14:12 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id p7EB1m00i3ZTu2S3b7ECME; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:14:12 +0000
Message-ID: <5283CF83.2090902@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:14:11 -0800
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C518151@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <5283BEA3.4040805@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5187CC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5187CC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1384370052; bh=d0IcTnO580Q0dWwBj+5elSVy0FBmxbk7ecz3S8N9qqY=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=ZQzJJuptIuB+CBqC9LY5U2FjO+vBM/C595U7+kachZ/3NChkDddRSfX8JkAqJRLj3 H78q/nl0C9eMGAM1wR7BMYxwkimxvph72q8/S4ahdoY9wzBNVNbeZ3/7ori1XxH0O8 dHd0FVgkFyFPvJlzLFOOcSF0fM1SM3XxxZa1f/yQ5zvkxzVoVBahv4mWDLRxgKlQMT Teptg61JU+ORmmcF202+uyhb8CeUX/fMjh6bk+o5yQ0UGq36ZiuSbUiIHcb8D7HXy4 M1b9LGHp+/0EnX/ePjGM4eUPO7wimmGKvwPkcj1kuDSzqWbKQM7h+Ua0tpCqYvUvOO CTAplplqWCOEQ==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DECISION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:14:19 -0000

On 11/13/13 10:42 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>> This works for me except for one thing: the word "session", which I fear is sufficiently ambiguous to present trouble.
>>
>> I suggest using "multi-media session". (We can't use "SIP session" or "SIP dialog" because this might be used without SIP.)
>
> I agree regarding not being able to use SIP terminology.
>
> I guess "multi-media session" is one option. What about "SDP session"?

I thought about that. I'm not in love with multi-media session.

When I look at 4566 I find a definition of "session" as multi-media 
session. I think "SDP session" gets the point across, though I have not 
seen "SDP session" used anywhere else.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> On 11/12/13 3:39 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In Vancouver we decided that an Offerer MUST NOT assign a shared address (with a non-zero port) to multiple m- lines until the Answerer, within the session, has indicated support of BUNDLE.
>>
>> I suggest the following piece of text to implement  the decision in the BUNDLE spec:
>>
>> 	"The Offerer MUST NOT assign a shared address with a non-zero port
>>      	value to multiple "m=" lines until it has, within the given session,
>>      	received an SDP Answer indicating that the Answerer supports the
>>      	BUNDLE mechanism."
>>
>> Note that there will be specific text regarding the usage of port zero for 'bundle-only' m- lines.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email