Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DECISSION: Full bundle or no bundle - there aint anything in between

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 24 May 2013 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 5C49921F89B0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 o5DFaId+lzSI for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB6A21F8E3C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fnBg1l0021c6gX854qcHbK; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:36:17 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id fqcG1l0193ZTu2S3jqcGEV; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:36:17 +0000
Message-ID: <519F7ADF.1010909@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:36:15 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3777C9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3777C9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1369406177; bh=0kG9xB+EeYwaUfh9MC0B8SDU0xeih1OUPF7gboukV14=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=F611quSol8M6/DnwqenrHeJJusys3IHRugBVlHmCxIcP8pfgnYbPJ5CBGI+Xybgsk b2/yHeWwXzVRew5y/NfW0iNNzpJyTjvoShA2CYc9DTHSrvWLX47EEa5P7R7nroBhah +8WIcGhTP3CjA9XpR8GVEESZADl53lWntDJYb3+iQ3aC3uz89J8eHjEga+NGd3Jlxk 9zVRkwllXFeVsMtlBJolrk6V8bnH0ilDrTZCuqelaBawGA5pHwOCHo8vK7y1M+F+kV avGCnCFRqw3RthWMpd5zkolRv6qzoE2hG5+i0uYj4cuVhKBFxG/zLyAxSwUlPSINDO ZMyNjCQKBOqaQ==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DECISSION: Full bundle or no bundle - there aint anything in between
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: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:36:22 -0000

I agree with the sense of what you state below.
I have some nits with the words you use.

On 5/24/13 6:28 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the interim yesterday, we agreed that an answerer MUST always include
> identical ports* (usage of port zero within a bundle is a separate
> topic) for all m- lines within an bundle group.
>
> If the answerer wants to use different ports* for some/all m- lines, it
> MUST NOT include those m- lines in a bundle group

OK so far. But:

> (if they already are
> in a bundle group, a separate offer is needed to remove them).

This depends on what you mean by "already in a bundle group".
Certainly they are already in a bundle group in the offer, so presumably 
that is not what you mean.

I presume you mean that they were already in a bundle group in the prior 
O/A.

I think this can be stated more clearly. How about:

The answer to an offer containing a bundle group may remove an m-line 
from the bundle group if (and only if) the address/port of the m-line in 
the offer is distinct from the address/port of all the other m-lines in 
the offered bundle group. When doing so it must supply a unique 
address/port for that m-line in the answer.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> WHAT IT MEANS: There is no way for an answerer to tell that the offerer,
> for certain m- lines, can use the same port*, eventhough the answer will
> use separate ports*.
>
> I will work on some actual text proposal later, but please indicate if
> you OBJECT to this approach in general.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> NOTE: “port” = port:address combination – we are working on coming up
> with better terminology J
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>