Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions

On 5/13/13 3:27 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, assuming we are going to update RFC 5888 (whatever the exact wording would be), would we do that within draft-bundle, or within a separate document?

That question always comes up, doesn't it?

IMO this could probably be handled in the bundle draft, since it is a 
small change and by the same wg. But it isn't my call. This question 
should be addressed by the chairs and the ADs.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 11. toukokuuta 2013 3:40
> To: Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
>
> On 5/10/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
>>>>      I struggled to find it too.  It's in 9.2:
>>>>
>>>>          SIP entities refuse media streams by setting the port to zero in the
>>>>          corresponding "m" line. "a=group" lines MUST NOT contain
>>>>          identification-tags that correspond to "m" lines with the port
>>>>      set to
>>>>          zero.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This feels like something we could relax for the offer.
>>>
>>> We could relax it. The question is if the change will break any
>>> existing use. That is a hard question to answer.
>>
>> We could say that whether it's valid must be defined by the group semantic, and for all existing group semantics it's not.
>
> WFM
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>