Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions

Hi,

>>> A few questions, assuming we allow port zero m- lines within a bundle.
>>
>> IMO we should try to keep mechanisms as flexible and independent of one another as possible. Answers below are based on that.
>>
>> Q1:
>>
>> Is the decision tied to whether we move forward with Plan A or Plan B?
>
>No. Why should it be?
>
>> Q2:
>>
>> Do we allow port zero only for "bundle-only" m- lines, or for m- lines in general?
>
> Any m-lines. I can't see any reason to be restrictive.
>
>> Q3:
>>
>> If we allow port zero only for "bundle-only" m- lines, is there a technical need to allow it in SDP answers?
>
> Again, keep things separate and clear. If I'm offered a bundled m-line with non-zero port, and want to reject it, I should be able to do
> so by setting the port to zero, just as if it was not bundled. Independently, if I'm offered a bundled m-line I may need to exclude it from 
> the bundle, and I should be able to make that decision while either accepting or rejecting the m-line.
>
>> Q4:
>>
>> We need to keep in mind that there is always a chance that the "top-most" m- line within a bundle group is a port zero one.
>
> What is the question?

Well, there are basically two "warm-up" questions:

Q4_1: When the first offer, with DIFFERENT port numbers is sent, and the receiver accepts bundle, is the receiver expected to be able to send media/data according to that?

Q4_2: IF Q4_1 THEN which m- line does the receiver use to send media/data (when the second offer comes, with identical port numbers, it is no longer an issue).

Regards,

Christer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: 13. toukokuuta 2013 10:27
> To: Paul Kyzivat; Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
>
> Hi,
>
> So, assuming we are going to update RFC 5888 (whatever the exact wording would be), would we do that within draft-bundle, or within a separate document?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 11. toukokuuta 2013 3:40
> To: Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
>
> On 5/10/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
>>>>      I struggled to find it too.  It's in 9.2:
>>>>
>>>>          SIP entities refuse media streams by setting the port to zero in the
>>>>          corresponding "m" line. "a=group" lines MUST NOT contain
>>>>          identification-tags that correspond to "m" lines with the port
>>>>      set to
>>>>          zero.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This feels like something we could relax for the offer.
>>>
>>> We could relax it. The question is if the change will break any 
>>> existing use. That is a hard question to answer.
>>
>> We could say that whether it's valid must be defined by the group semantic, and for all existing group semantics it's not.
>
> WFM
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>