[MMUSIC] comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-05
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sun, 27 October 2013 22:05 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 905F921E805F for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, 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 pCkpUkjOqbID for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B3A11E82B7 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iMbo1m0070QuhwU5CN5ASH; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:05:10 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iN591m00n3ZTu2S3NN59u2; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:05:10 +0000
Message-ID: <526D8E15.9070800@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:05:09 -0400
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/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Christer.Holmberg@ericsson.com" <Christer.Holmberg@ericsson.com>
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=1382911510; bh=z0bDnOZ/pLbr0UnNk0ivI3LcIwjXhobOdWNoisbHrVI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=kieftIbzNmGB8iP8xq8hXBsYTvEeL+IHfHoLb0b3V29X0jqPRvvUJNIvOR+O8X59g FisUbCuCea9XqhrxL7F8A52/faffGau6ILH3McO5QGHDHnM3Izvu/ErJwvHbRX3pm9 1dm7dkrGPUyeEXuxaCsoXcao3Q0JMB2ilQiFNuthdY55F45Wj/u+oiAD5mtlAzeb5y snSOz8+jlQ+8agrwcSbWfg22sDLTXv1xtojiultv3h2bS7rsuRrg1Y4WK0wpJzMWCN 79TGkMX8UGYVy7MhUNtJG/hYHw0tCyk0cHBzAfG3zjOciSh8zkDwV3cxZTXSQKRZiM C4q9edb+OvaVA==
Cc: IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: [MMUSIC] comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-05
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: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:05:49 -0000
I did a fairly careful read of this version.
The good news is that it keeps improving.
But I still found a number of things that I would like to see improved:
Regarding rtcp-mux:
The definition of Bundled media in section 2 implies that rtcp-mux is
optional, but must be the same for all m-lines in the bundle.
Section 6.2.3 says m-lines in a bundle MUST have the rtcp-mux attribute.
Section 6.2.4 implies the use of the rtcp attribute is optional, but
must be the same in all m-lines in the bundle.
IIRC there was discussion of what the rtcp attribute should be if
rtcp-mux is in use. Either it shouldn't be used, or it should be the
same port as for the rtp, or it doesn't matter. Seems like it would be
best to say what to use in this case.
Section 6.2.6:
I'm not sure, but ISTM unique crypto attributes should be used for
m-lines that have unique addresses, and should have identical values for
m-lines that have identical addresses.
Section 6.4.1:
You talk about a "shared address" here and in later sections. But I
can't find a statement anywhere that there can only be one shared
address per bundle group. You might want to put this in the terminology
section.
Section 6.4.3 says:
When an Offerer receives an Answer, in which an offered BUNDLE group
is accepted, if the Offerer in the associated Offer assigned an
address (unique or shared), that does not represent the BUNDLE
address selected for the Offerer, to an "m=" line within the BUNDLE
group, the Offerer MUST send a subsequent Offer, in which it assigns
the BUNDLE address selected for the Offerer to each "m=" line within
the BUNDLE group. This procedure is referred to as Bundle Address
Synchronization (BAS), and the Offer is referred to as a BAS Offer.
I tried to parse it below. To do so, I had to move "that does not
represent the BUNDLE address selected for the Offerer,".
When an Offerer receives an Answer,
in which an offered BUNDLE group is accepted,
if the Offerer in the associated Offer assigned an address
(unique or shared), to an "m=" line within the BUNDLE group,
that does not represent the BUNDLE address selected for the
Offerer,
the Offerer MUST send a subsequent Offer, in which it assigns
the BUNDLE address selected for the Offerer to each "m=" line within
the BUNDLE group. This procedure is referred to as Bundle Address
Synchronization (BAS), and the Offer is referred to as a BAS Offer.
Even so, it still doesn't quite make sense to me. The problem is with
"selected for the Offerer". IIUC it would state that as "selected by the
Answerer".
And in any case I'm not sure if I then have the intended interpretation.
I *think* the condition you are trying to describe is:
- offer included bundle group
- answer accepted bundle group
- M is the first mid in the bundle group in the answer
- A is the media address of the m-line in the offer that
has mid M
- some m-line in offered bundle group that was accepted in the answer
doesn't have media address A
If that is what you are trying to say, then we just have to figure out
how to say it intelligibly. I think trying to string it out into a
sentence is not going to work, and so you need to break it down
something like I did above.
Section 6.5.1
This section is titled "Offerer Bundle Address Selection", and starts out:
When an Answerer generates an Answer that contains a BUNDLE group,
the Answer MUST select the Offerer's BUNDLE address.
As I noted earlier, I find this terminology confusing about who is doing
what. I think it would be clearer to say this as follows:
6.5.1. Answerer Selection of Offerer's Bundle Address
When an Answerer generates an Answer that contains a BUNDLE group,
the Answer MUST select the m-line that will determine the BUNDLE
address for offerer and answerer. The first mid value in the SDP
group:BUNDLE attribute mid list of the Offer represents the m-line
which the Offerer wishes the Answer to select. (Section 6.4.2.)
The Answerer SHOULD select the the first mid value from the offer,
unless the Answerer in the associated Answer will reject the
"m=" line associated with that mid value, or remove the "m=" line
from the BUNDLE group. In such case the Answerer MUST select
the first unrejected mid value that remains in the SDP group:BUNDLE
attribute mid list of the Offer.
Section 6.5.4:
What should be done if rejecting the m-line causes the bundle group to
be empty?
Section 7.2:
o The dynamic payload type values used in the "m=" lines MUST NOT
overlap.
What do you mean by overlap? I thought we were going to allow the same
PT to be used in multiple bundled m-lines as long as the definition of
that PT was the same.
Section 8.2:
Shouldn't it be sufficient to supply candidates for one of the m-lines
that share an address?
Thanks,
Paul
- [MMUSIC] comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle… Paul Kyzivat