Re: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle

Agreed.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> I support using the current BUNDLE document as the basis of future
> multiplexing work.
>
> However, I agree there are a number of outstanding details that need to be
> resolved before this specification is implementable.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Hutton, Andrew <
> andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I stated during the discussion in Orlando that I believe the WG needs to
>> do a deeper dive in to some of the more complex scenarios involving
>> multiple ICE candidates (E.g. Dual Stack, relay candidates etc.).
>>
>> After the meeting I thought about this some more and submitted
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-mmusic-bundled-ice-candidates-00which makes a small start on this. I will spend some time over the next
>> couple of weeks thinking this out a bit more and will probably update the
>> draft but any comments from the working group as to whether this is
>> valuable or not would be appreciated.
>>
>> My thinking is that this might be an extension to the current approach
>> rather than an alternative.
>>
>> Regards
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Ari Keränen
>> > Sent: 15 April 2013 14:57
>> > To: mmusic
>> > Subject: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle
>> >
>> > At the Orlando meeting we had a call for consensus (see the minutes of
>> > the meeting at [1]) on using the current SDP bundle WG document [2] as
>> > the baseline of the bundle work. That is, using the offer/answer
>> > exchange as outlined in the draft (subject to clarifying comments made
>> > during the meeting) and using the port numbers as described in the
>> > draft.
>> >
>> > The other option would be to not use this as the baseline but to
>> > continue discussing the alternative methods.
>> >
>> > The show-of-hands at the meeting was around 30 for (going forward with
>> > the method described in the WG bundle doc) and 4 against. The MMUSIC
>> > chairs would like to confirm the consensus on this.
>> >
>> > Those who were not present at the meeting to comment on this, please do
>> > so now.
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ari
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-mmusic
>> > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
>> > negotiation-03
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>