Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 14 May 2013 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E55221F8EED for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 05:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.878
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id diPHGsBfBZGZ for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 05:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3D821F8E99 for <>; Tue, 14 May 2013 05:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f396d000007d06-eb-519227812242
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5A.56.32006.18722915; Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:05 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>, Paul Kyzivat <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Splitting a BUNDLE
Thread-Index: AQHOUDUR9NWS3FUwQ2O4qnaDoH5QzZkEk5gA
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:01:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW6j+qRAg3k3TCymLn/MYrFiwwFW i5cnyhyYPf6+/8DkMXn/V2aPJUt+MgUwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBltDTNZSnYxVmxd9Vq5gbG hexdjJwcEgImEvffLGKCsMUkLtxbzwZiCwkcZpTYO7myi5ELyF7CKPF/3UHmLkYODjYBC4nu f9ogNSICgRLbuk6zgoSZBdQlri4OAgkLCxhItDUvYIUoMZR49+sVI4RtJNH0fDpYnEVAVWLp 2l4WEJtXwFfiy+sWdohVSxkl7n75AHYPp4CDxLr1M5hBbEag276fWgMWZxYQl7j1ZD7UzQIS S/acZ4awRSVePv7HCmErSrQ/bWCEqNeRWLD7ExuErS2xbOFrZojFghInZz5hmcAoNgvJ2FlI WmYhaZmFpGUBI8sqRvbcxMyc9HKjTYzAmDm45bfqDsY750QOMUpzsCiJ8yZzNQYKCaQnlqRm p6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYJTtvRvZHNzAciKxqfTyK/NO7jcXyr0Prij/IvR3rWqs/ynd G+K7/wpUmt6Is5x1VM1KvX77rhLTdUXX9u2++IhlbsaFJZ3ti1jfrWOY2XrTtnreBfbTicUV SkY8SRPF3R53tt01X9w6hc1B3NAmbKKp1qep3ZHbV1W+ENC4Hfxgs45M1A6NYiWW4oxEQy3m ouJEANj/7mhnAgAA
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Splitting a BUNDLE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:01:13 -0000


>>> We seem to have an agreement that, when an SDP offer contains an m- 
>>> line associated with a bundle group, it is ok to leave that m- line 
>>> outside the bundle group in the SDP Answer.
>> Now, there has been some discussions about b>
>> Yes, this is the conclusion I reached. I wish it weren't true. But I 
>> think there must be a mechanism for the new bundle to be rejected, and 
>> if it is first proposed in the answer then that isn't possible.
>> IMO this is a rare enough case that suffering another O/A is acceptable.
> I agree with Paul here.

Me too :)

> Allowing a new group (bundle) to be created in an answer is a much larger deviation from RFC 5888 than allowing an m= line with a zero port to be in a group, and the accept/reject problem can't be solved.

Note that there are two cases:

1) A new bundle is created in the answer

2) An m- line is moved from bundle_x in the offer to bundle_y in the answer. bundle_y was also present in the offer, so it is not created by the answerer.

In my opinion 2) should not be allowed either, as the m- line was not present in bundle_y in the offer.