Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Updated offer procedures

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15 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 0DD2621F9837 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_15=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 pLKn6dqX5if8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92A521F9839 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hPFJ1l0021YDfWL5AUFkai; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15:44 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hUFk1l00R3ZTu2S3gUFk7R; Tue, 28 May 2013 16:15:44 +0000
Message-ID: <51A4D82F.6040806@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:15:43 -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: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37A880@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37A880@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=1369757744; bh=5R8MGsoft+TTRls8oN4Aw54pJ05Cb/oEsDjyYOP1tEY=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=VKXjraPXiziq1qWeLzEZ8YMN3MQiQPO4mlgA/JpeeApNEXKoGHI/xG2kfIru0OMv9 2v6RXkjiEz3ATdnPP8e08Yt0GtdYsQf/PIiJaUZ/IMVFfLKIYAqI7e0GcZADTmbXhj 4HmxSwh3hPq2vnhdRQO7k2/ANrFE8p1ilqS2lioIYRmA9lKQAR/wU3p3sM5CKGBGDr F5ZcwIcahZ3LswTSgLgB3+eagxEgNKmepqNMQqFqu3st5DffqRzSCMbM2PXIQaRWrR AAxCx7TUjVEF/dpkmUQ/1ARfdtl25WTFCgSt4RkizRB9TJEi3gSTmxvsidXnrukWYz Il6V85SGw9GsQ==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Updated offer procedures
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, 28 May 2013 16:15:52 -0000

On 5/28/13 3:58 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has been some discussions about updated bundle offers, especially in cases where a new m- line is added to a bundle group, or when a port-zero-m-line within a bundle group is "taken back to use". In this e-mail, I refer to both cases as "adding a new m- line".
>
> When the updated offer is sent, the offerer has two choices:
>
> 1)	The port value of the new m- line is identical to the port values of the other m- lines in the bundle:
>
> This should be rather straight forward. According to answer restriction #4, the answerer can either accept the new m- line within the bundle group, or reject the m- line by setting the port to zero.
>
>
> 2)	The port value of the new m- line is NOT identical to the port values of the other m- lines in the bundle:
>
> In this case, the answer has the possibility to remove the m- line from the bundle group, as it has a individual port number in the offer.
>
> Now, there are two "sub cases":
>
> 2a)	The new m- line(s) have individual port numbers, but the old m- lines have the previously negotiated single bundle port value
>
> I guess this case is the one we need to focus most on.
>
> In my opinion, if the answerer accepts the new m- line, it must use the previously negotiated bundle port. IF the offerer (or answerer) wants to re-negotiate the bundle port, it must act according to 2b (see below).
>
>
> 2b)	The new m- line(s), AND, the old ones, have individual port numbers
>
> In my opinion, this is a "bundle restart", where the port (and, then bundle in general) is re-negotiated.

I agree with all you say above.

But those aren't all the cases. Some other possibilities:

- new offer has all m-lines with identical ports, but answerer wants to
   replace its own addr/port while preserving the bundle. So it puts
   the (new) identical addr/port in all m-lines.

- hybrids of the above with your other cases.

Also, a somewhat different aspect of this:

In the first answer establishing a bundle the a=group identifies which 
m-line contains the bundle port.

Then a new O/A fills in that single port value in all the m-lines of the 
bundle. Is there any significance to the order of the mid values in that 
offer and answer? (No matter which one it is, it presumably still points 
to an m-line with identical port, so I don't see any need for rules.)

Then in a subsequent O/A that changes the bundle in some way, are there 
rules for which m-line the first mid points to? E.g., consider your case 
(2) above. Can the offer or answer designate one of the new m-lines 
(with unique ports) as the bundle port? (I can argue this one either way.)

	Thanks,
	Paul