Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE TEXT: nettype/addrtype restriction [was: Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-05]

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 11/14/13 9:41 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I don't understand the point of this.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any general use of a nettype other than IN,
>
> RFC 3108 defines an 'ATM' value.
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs defines a 'PSTN' value.
>
>> or an addrtype other than IP4 or IP6, but I also don't see why the behavior of bundle is dependent upon this.
>
> RFC 3109 defines 'NSAP', 'E164' and 'GWID' values.
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs defines an 'E164' value.
>
> (Whether the semantics of the two 'E164' values are the same I don't know, but that's a separate issue).
>
>> Any other choices that still have a notion of port sufficient to allow SDP O/A rules to apply should also work with bundle.
>
> I see no reason to require an extension in such cases - especially since they are very unlikely to occur.

This is more of a philosophical issue - whether to say as little as 
possible, and allow the scope to be broad, or say extra to narrow the 
scope to the specific case that has motivated the work.

I favor saying nothing about this, and leaving the scope to include any 
network and address type. You are preferring to narrow it. I can live 
with whatever the consensus is.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>> Based on the comments from Christian, I suggest the following new text for BUNDLE:
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> 6.2.2.  Connection Data (c=)
>>
>>      The "c=" line nettype value [RFC4566] associated with each "m=" line
>>      within a BUNDLE group MUST be 'IN'.
>>
>>      The "c=" line addrtype value [RFC4566] associated with each "m=" line
>>      within a BUNDLE group MUST be 'IP4' or 'IP6'.  The same value MUST be
>>      associated with each "m=" line within a BUNDLE group.
>>
>>      NOTE: Extensions to this specification can specify usage of the
>>      BUNDLE mechanism for other nettype and addrtype values than the ones
>>      listed above.
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>> Lähettäjä: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Puolesta Christian Groves
>> Lähetetty: 15. lokakuuta 2013 3:05
>> Vastaanottaja: [e-mail]
>> Aihe: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version:
>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-05
>>
>> Hello Christer,
>>
>> The SDP grouping mechanism can be applied to different nettype/addrtypes. The BUNDLE draft appears to define behaviour related only to the nettype=IN and addrtypes=IPv4/IPv6. i.e. section 2 defines BUNDLE terminology based on IP.
>>
>> Is there an intention that the BUNDLE mechanism is only used for the above net and addrtypes? If so should it be mentioned somewhere in the applicability statement?
>>
>> Regards, Christian
>>
>> On 14/10/2013 10:37 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've submitted a new version of the BUNDLE draft.
>>>
>>> I have implemented the modified text for the Offerer and Answerer
>>> procedures, as presented on the list in September.
>>>
>>> The procedures now also mention the usage of the SDP 'bundle-only'
>>> attribute. However, the attribute definition itself has yet not been
>>> added to the draft, as we still haven't solved the issue regarding
>>> usage of port zero.
>>>
>>> In addition, there are some reference corrections, and the FQDN
>>> values in the examples are now according to RFC 2606.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>