Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Accept m- line, reject bundle

It sounds like we are approaching violent agreement on this.

But what about "bundle splitting" that I introduced even before this 
discussion began? It is more complex. Because of the rule that a bundle 
can't include an m-line with zero port, it is forced to use Alt-3.

IMO Alt 1-3 are all "valid", if the answerer finds them acceptable to 
it. But for certain common cases its pretty clear that one is clearly 
better than another.

Alt 1 is better in cases when you can use it. Alt 3 should work when Alt 
1 won't. I envision no cases when Alt 2 is useful, but I see no reason 
to ban it.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/10/13 4:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 10 May 2013 13:47, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> A few alternatives on how this could be achieved have been presented:
>>>
>>> Alt 1.      The answerer accepts the m- line, but does not associate it with a BUNDLE group.
>>>
>>> Alt 2.      The answerer accepts the m- line, associates it with a BUNDLE group, and then sends a new offer which removes the m- line from the BUNDLE group.
>>>
>>> Alt 3.      The answerer rejects the m- line, and then sends a new offer which adds the m- line outside a BUNDLE group.
>>
>> I think you want to to Alt 1.
>
> I'm on Alt 1 as well.  There are two signals that this is unbundled:
>    a. The port is different.
>    b. The BUNDLE group doesn't include the mid.
> The former wouldn't be sufficient, but the latter is always enough.
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>