Re: [MMUSIC] Updated MSID draft

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>> 2) Offer/Answer procedures are lacking. We need to have an O/A 
>>> section with subsections as per RFC 3264 (for unicast) to better 
>>> specify the overall behavior here (Generating the Initial Offer, 
>>> Generating the Answer, Offerer Processing of the Answer, Modifying 
>>> the Session)
>> Hm. But MSID isn't an offer/answer field. It's an unilateral 
>> declaration, and refers to no information coming from the other side.
>>
>> Does it make sense to follow the offer/answer section format when the 
>> answer doesn't depend on the offer?
> It does. Even declarative SDP parameters have procedures that must be 
> followed by the offerer and the answerer and we want those called out clearly.

I agree.

I have to admit that I was sceptical when Flemming asked me to do a similar change for the UDPTL-DTLS draft, but afterward I think it was a good thing to do.

Especially when it comes to subsequent offer/answer exchanges, it's good to have explicit text on what is allowed, and what is not.

I also did the same change for BUNDLE (which was a much bigger exercise than I initially thought :), so let me know if you need some help :)

Regards,

Christer