Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting with bundling

["Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Dale R. Worley


> it does not see media.  (It does not suffice for the answerer to
> provide a null transport address and non-zero port for the MD, or for
> the answerer to send "a=inactive", as an intermediate entity may see
> the MD as being accepted and expect the offerer to send RTCP.)
> 

Considering the following text from RFC 3264:

"Of course, when used, the port number MUST NOT be zero, which would specify that the stream has been disabled.  An agent MUST be capable of receiving SDP with a connection address of 0.0.0.0, in which case it means that neither RTP nor RTCP should be sent to the peer."

There is no ambiguity here about the meaning of zero port.

While this text could be interpreted to not specifically preclude the peer that indicates an unspecified address from sending RTCP to the peer indicating a valid address, this seems really far-fetched to me.  Sending this RTCP would be pointless and wasteful since by definition it would have nothing to report on and there is no possibility to receive reports.  

If would be nice to eliminate this ambiguity by ending the quoted sentence "...neither RTP nor RTCP should be sent to either peer."

The text also says that the peer indicating an unspecified address "...doesn't know the addresses and ports at the time..."  Again, it seems like a real stretch to assume that the peer can send RTCP if it doesn't have an address or port available for receipt of RTP.

Richard