Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session

Hi,

>As an individual draft or WG draft?

It was meant to be a new version of bundle...

>because I am definitely don't think we have consensus for the "m=bundle" approach yet. I just think the >m=bundle approach is going to be much harder to get to work with existing equipment. Stuff is used to >seeing a=foo lines they don't understand. They are not used to seeing m=foo lines they don't understand. >It doubles the size of the SDP. It creates confusing when rest of SDP in the non bundle part does not >match bundle part. It's harder to add other things like opportunistic encryption. But my real problem >with it is I don't see any advantage of the m=bundle approach over the a=bundle  approach.

What is the a=bundle approach? Offering "normal" (audio, video, etc) m- lines, and then use one of them for the whole bundle?

Regards,

Christer

On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've put together a new version of BUNDLE, with a dedicated m- line for the bundled media.
>
> It will be submitted very soon, once I get some editorial fixes done.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [fluffy@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:43 PM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: Christer Holmberg; mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session
>
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
>>> So, IF people think that offering the same port will cause problem,
>
> For me this is not longer an IF, for equipment I am concerned about it has become a does as I explain at last meeting.
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic