Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-49: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> This doesn't answer my question. Who, specifically, thinks that this terminology
>> of focusing on the address:port and not the m= section is good?
> 
> Considering that the focus has been on the address and port since day one, for 7 years, I think it is good. After all, while there is more to it than the address:port, the main reason for BUNDLE is to be able to multiplex in a single address:port.
> 
> Now, we HAVE discussed changing "address:port" to "transport", but it would still not be about the m= section.
> 
>>> Having said that, if we can change it with a search/replace operation I am
>>> happy to discuss it. I THINK we could do that e.g., with "transport" or
>>> "3-tuple". 
>>> 
>>> But I don¹t want to make yet another re-write of the document just to once
>>> again change the terminology.
>> 
>> This document is going to be used by a lot of people. It's important that it be
>> clear.
> 
> I fully agree. But, I am not sure that endless re-writings the document is going to achieve that.

I think this has turned into an argument about style. One usage may be more pleasing to the “ear” than the other, but I don’t see issues of technical correctness or clarity here. As I asked for the the “associated with” question, is anyone arguing that the word choice here is likely to cause material implementation errors?

Ben.