Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: SDP Offer Types

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 04 June 2013 17:40 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 13E3221E80F1 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, 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 Q1+Z7LBPjOsH for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79E821F9A4B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id kBAi1l0021YDfWL59GQeXn; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:24:38 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id kGQe1l00K3ZTu2S3gGQeVR; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:24:38 +0000
Message-ID: <51AE14C5.6000701@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:24:37 -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: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37F87C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <51A8B059.7070705@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C38134B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <51ACFB79.1080207@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C38248B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C38248B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1370363078; bh=jW91VkBc9qcgB+Sbk+CYG2EwnDsaJKuHKI3Hf4ePW3k=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=V2vpO2H55koci7AAczp3kvQb2XTHUM9lZoo+6d9uJVWl7/ANVGhS1LgGMYOU0Gl+P ksYWbE5qa4VtMuk9Aih0DpqtPiaxuWj7mzpb3G2ZShCD/uoJEktY7uoAOPTVU16jsF W2rkMX6rl9o+/u4gDoe1jHWiLXW0ykI32jih2WcKSa7IKEFjrzvwZeAC9BQHpydlFi 0AIPGaBciHx7OR12Gs/nAscyTMOHKIyyQy6kQNsMYMgFyKb7RxVqIyN/QibEJwqTm0 VCtxMVxRuoxcy3goAx02HSxcazxAI/7euKiQF9jaNQL7KxUUAbraWxdfDTSHHYnjh2 X2EUYLj7qyqGQ==
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: SDP Offer Types
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:40:19 -0000

On 6/4/13 3:28 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>>>> I'll throw the ball out with suggesting the following ones:
>>>>>
>>>>> -*Bundle restart offer* (different port value, currently referred to
>>>>> as "first offer")
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I use "restart" wording is because this is used, no
>>>>> matter whether in the beginning of the session or mid-session, to
>>>>> (re-)negotiate the usage of BUNDLE, and the bundle address
>>>>> information selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> -*Bundle sync offer* (identical port value, currently referred to as
>>>>> "second offer")
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I used "sync" wording is because this is used to ensure
>>>>> that intermediaries have correct address information for each m- line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that we may even need to split the sync offer into more
>>>>> sub types, when we get into the details of adding new m- lines etc,
>>>>> but I'd like to agree a base to start from :)
>>>>
>>>> Above seems like a good start, but I'm still grappling with some
>>>> things and don't know how to talk about concisely:
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the next offer after a Bundle Restart Offer will
>>>> typically be a Bundle Sync Offer. But if there is another offer after
>>>> a Bundle Sync Offer, and it doesn't change anything about the bundle,
>>>> then is it still a Bundle Sync Offer?
>>>
>>> Currently, yes.
>>
>> I agree that without adjusting the terminology this is the only right choice to make. But it is a little obscure. I'm not certain this needs to be improved, but I thought I would suggest that it might.
>>>
>>>> Also, I don't believe the above are mutually exclusive. If I send an
>>>> offer to add a new m-line to a bundle, and I give it distinct address
>>>> info so that the answerer may take it out of the bundle if needed,
>>>> then is that a Bundle Restart Offer or a Bundle Sync Offer? It seems
>>>> to be a bit of each. And of course there may be multiple bundles
>>>> described by the SDP, and these terms apply independently to each.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we need a couple more terms for:
>>>>
>>>> - offer that adds a new m-line to bundle using the existing bundle
>>>>     address info.
>>>
>>> Technically that is a Bundle Sync Offer, but I DO agree that the wording is not good in this case - as it's not only about synchronization.
>>>
>>>> - offer that adds a new m-line to an existing bundle using unique
>>>>     address info.
>>>
>>> I agree that doesn't fit the current definitions.
>>>
>>> However, we will have to agree on whether we allow that in the first place, or whether the offerer will have to use 1) same address information or 2) different address information for ALL m- lines (Bundle Restart Offer).
>>
>> Yes, we need to settle on whether either or both of these are permitted.
>>
>> But I can think of reasons why I might wish to use either one, and no good reason not to allow both. So allowing both is my preference.
>
> I personally think we should allow BOTH 1) and 2).
>
> The question is whether we should allow 3), which is new m- line with unique address, while the other m- lines use the bundle address.

I agree it is a valid question to ask.
Again, I can see how it might be useful sometimes, and I can see no 
reason not to allow it. Its just a special case of the bundle restart 
offer.

(Note, IMO it should be ok for the very first offer to propose a bundle 
with address info already shared among m-lines in the proposed bundle. 
Using that trades off potential interop issues for speed in establishing 
the session.)

	Thanks,
	Paul