Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DECISION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

Hi Thomas,

>From a BUNDLE perspective, the 2nd Offer is always mandated. BUNDLE currently does not define different rules for specific environments.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S

"Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@unify.com> wrote:

Christer,

is there any connection between the subject line and the content of this mail threat about putting the shared address into the offer? I'm a bit confused.

Separate from this I want to clarify if the 2nd offer/answer exchange as indicated in the subject line is just used in SIP environments in order to do the usual intermediary "appeasement".
Would the second offer/answer also be required for the WebRTC case where just have two browser client being connect via the same WebRTC server and no further intermediaries?

Kind Regards
Thomas Stach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Mittwoch, 13. November 2013 20:14
> To: Christer Holmberg; mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DECISION Q6: Do we always mandate 2
> Offer/Answers during session establishment?
>
> On 11/13/13 10:42 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> >> This works for me except for one thing: the word "session", which I
> fear is sufficiently ambiguous to present trouble.
> >>
> >> I suggest using "multi-media session". (We can't use "SIP session"
> or "SIP dialog" because this might be used without SIP.)
> >
> > I agree regarding not being able to use SIP terminology.
> >
> > I guess "multi-media session" is one option. What about "SDP
> session"?
>
> I thought about that. I'm not in love with multi-media session.
>
> When I look at 4566 I find a definition of "session" as multi-media
> session. I think "SDP session" gets the point across, though I have not
> seen "SDP session" used anywhere else.
>
>       Thanks,
>       Paul
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
> > On 11/12/13 3:39 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In Vancouver we decided that an Offerer MUST NOT assign a shared
> address (with a non-zero port) to multiple m- lines until the Answerer,
> within the session, has indicated support of BUNDLE.
> >>
> >> I suggest the following piece of text to implement  the decision in
> the BUNDLE spec:
> >>
> >>    "The Offerer MUST NOT assign a shared address with a non-zero
> port
> >>            value to multiple "m=" lines until it has, within the given
> session,
> >>            received an SDP Answer indicating that the Answerer
> supports the
> >>            BUNDLE mechanism."
> >>
> >> Note that there will be specific text regarding the usage of port
> zero for 'bundle-only' m- lines.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Christer
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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