Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: meaning of "unspecified" when describing "bundle-only"

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

My suggestion would be alternative #2. Because, if an endpoint supports
the attribute it doesn¹t really matter what the port value is, so there is
no need to reject the m- line.

Regards,

Christer


On 29/12/16 23:15, "mmusic on behalf of Adam Roach"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>We've recently come across an issue with the way the "bundle-only"
>attribute is described in the current document. The current language
>regarding port handling reads:
>
>    The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
>    bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer. Other
>    usage is unspecified.
>
>Usually, when we have this kind of language, we still ensure that
>behavior is well defined, to help avoid unnecessary interop failures. I
>see a couple of different options here:
>
> 1. Remove the final sentence and add language saying that creators of
>    SDP MUST NOT include a "bundle-only" attribute in an m-section that
>    has a non-zero port, and that recipients of such SDP {SHOULD,MUST}
>    reject it; or
>
> 2. Retain language saying that including a "bundle-only" attribute in a
>    non-zero m-section is unspecified, but add normative language along
>    the lines of: "implementations that receive an m-section with a
>    non-zero port that also contains a 'bundle-only' attribute MUST
>    ignore the {attribute,port}."
>
>I don't have a preference between these choices, but I think we do need
>clarity. To be absolutely clear, this feedback is based on actual
>implementation interop failures in the field. This problem is not
>theoretical.
>
>/a
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmusic mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic