IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with Bundle

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 17 April 2013 21:07 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 3B87C21E80A8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, 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 rf-Y7Cm-WN0c for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82B321E80B0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:07:08 -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 r3HL6wQN011966 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:07:00 -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 r3HL6w7p2893725 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r3HL6wir2892699; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:06:58 -0400
Message-Id: <201304172106.r3HL6wir2892699@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: mmusic@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <516C071B.5050204@ericsson.com> (ari.keranen@ericsson.com)
References: <516C071B.5050204@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Confirming consensus on way forward with 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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:07:09 -0000

> From: Ari KerC$nen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
> 
> At the Orlando meeting we had a call for consensus (see the minutes of 
> the meeting at [1]) on using the current SDP bundle WG document [2] as 
> the baseline of the bundle work. That is, using the offer/answer 
> exchange as outlined in the draft (subject to clarifying comments made 
> during the meeting) and using the port numbers as described in the draft.

I am not convinced that draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03 is
the best approach.  In particular, I think the approach in the MMT
proposal would be an improvement, where there is a separate m= line to
describe the bundle as a whole, as opposed to just specifying that
certain flows are to share a port.

Unfortunately, I've not seen some of the earlier parts of the
discussion, and there may have been a discussion why having a bundle
m= line is undesirable.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email