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

Christer,
I also did not get the impression that there was agreement on the m=bundle approach since there were a number of open issues.

As Cullen suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09561.html, just offer a normal SDP, add a bundle line, and assume the use of the connection information from the first m line.  I agree with Cullen.  I do not agree with the m=bundle approach for all the reasons Cullen mentions.  The only thing I would add is that some networks may require an updated offer be sent listing the correct port (the same one) on each media line if bundle is negotiated.  ICE already requires a 2nd offer in many cases, so I don't see this as a problem.

Richard 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:12 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line
> for bundled session
> 
> Hi,
> 
> >As an individual draft or WG draft?
> 
> It was meant to be a new version of bundle...
> 
> >because I am definitely don't think we have consensus for the "m=bundle"
> approach yet. I just think the >m=bundle approach is going to be much
> harder to get to work with existing equipment. Stuff is used to >seeing
> a=foo lines they don't understand. They are not used to seeing m=foo lines
> they don't understand. >It doubles the size of the SDP. It creates
> confusing when rest of SDP in the non bundle part does not >match bundle
> part. It's harder to add other things like opportunistic encryption. But
> my real problem >with it is I don't see any advantage of the m=bundle
> approach over the a=bundle  approach.
> 
> What is the a=bundle approach? Offering "normal" (audio, video, etc) m-
> lines, and then use one of them for the whole bundle?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Christer Holmberg
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've put together a new version of BUNDLE, with a dedicated m- line for
> the bundled media.
> >
> > It will be submitted very soon, once I get some editorial fixes done.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [fluffy@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:43 PM
> > To: Harald Alvestrand
> > Cc: Christer Holmberg; mmusic@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-
> line for bundled session
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> wrote:
> >
> >>> So, IF people think that offering the same port will cause problem,
> >
> > For me this is not longer an IF, for equipment I am concerned about it
> has become a does as I explain at last meeting.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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