Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 20 September 2012 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418B021F873E for <>; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.844
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wDkgdXmwRZhK for <>; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8A021F8783 for <>; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f7d6d0000042ea-4e-505b44b5bc43
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EF.75.17130.5B44B505; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:30:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:30:44 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <>, "" <>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:29:00 +0200
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session
Thread-Index: AQHNloXeD9Ycc2NyQEeW/u8tEHQmlZeSJKuAgAAE0YCAAABpgIAADcgggAAIemiAAA7iwIAAAtQ1gADic5CAADi4uQ==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <BLU401-EAS1263CBF056291C5313CA95193CD0@phx.gbl> <> <BLU002-W14079A44079EFA284B8E94793CC0@phx.gbl> <> <>, <BLU401-EAS1449593A32E42F2871B483E93BC0@phx.gbl> <> <>, <> <>, <> <>, <> <>, <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre5Wl+gAg4WdphZTlz9msehtCHdg 8mh9tpfVY8mSn0wBTFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGb/3n2Up6OOsmHVzP1MD43z2LkZODgkBE4mv 3w8wQ9hiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4xSjxYtoKRghnAaPE29cfWboYOTjYBCwkuv9pgzSICGRJbD3V zwJiswioSpyYOwNsqLBAvMSKbUuZIWoSJHZNWssI0gpSv7lVDCTMKxAucaB/MTvE+E8cEpt/ TgSbwykQK/Hj/1EmEJsR6KDvp9aA2cwC4hK3nsxngjhUQGLJnvNQR4tKvHz8jxWiXlTiTvt6 Roh6HYkFuz+xQdjaEssWvmaGWCwocXLmE5YJjKKzkIydhaRlFpKWWUhaFjCyrGIUzk3MzEkv N9dLLcpMLi7Oz9MrTt3ECIyQg1t+G+xg3HRf7BCjNAeLkjivnup+fyGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii 0pzU4kOMTBycUg2Mh9++uRB4+fICpRXTanKyzV79XLDT9pfjCs7LT+eskZn+1Ib3Pae3i9zB 1hViT7l+5579/HxGRqj+PMfAtKj8Jr0ysxyPW4adP8teSCzfXrW27+TBf/xu2duPrDOU/c7+ Za7VUa63r6u3rPm5eE6x/MP3n72Ubr1b6JfXclJB5JtNjV9Ua/+GbCWW4oxEQy3mouJEAFNK LrZeAgAA
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:30:49 -0000


>>>What I understood is that the group (Cullen in particular) does not want
>>> the same port on multiple media lines when it is not known whether the peer supports bundle.  Once you
>>> get agreement to use bundle I don't see a problem, but maybe I missed something...  Does anyone have a
>>> different perspective?
>> Then one could claim that the initial offer should be sent without bundle
>> (no matter how the mechanism works), and then enable bundle once you know
>> that the other endpoint supports it.
> What is the advantage of doing this?  The format suggested by Cullen will be handled correctly by an endpoint that doesn't support 
> bundle and could also be handled correctly by an endpoint supporting bundle (if it is understood that the connection information comes
> from the first media line in the bundle).  I suggested a second offer/answer only for the benefit of intermediates.

And how is the m=bundle mechanism not going to be handled correctly by endpoints? An endpoint that doesn't support it would reject it, and an endpoint that supports it can accept it.