Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Splitting a BUNDLE

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Mon, 13 May 2013 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C392B21F957D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 16:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3HVbtGWoDaGj for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 16:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5FE21F958A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 16:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (svani@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4DNrUIc025298; Mon, 13 May 2013 19:53:32 -0400
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r4DNrUDd4710087; Mon, 13 May 2013 19:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r4DNrTrr4646686; Mon, 13 May 2013 19:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <201305132353.r4DNrTrr4646686@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
In-reply-to: <519103E1.8030200@alum.mit.edu> (pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu)
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36F22F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <519103E1.8030200@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Splitting a BUNDLE
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 23:53:44 -0000

> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
> 
> On 5/13/13 7:58 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >
> > 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.  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.

Dale