Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: meaning of "unspecified" when describing "bundle-only"

That works for me. 

> On Jul 11, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It took a while, but here is my suggestion (based on alternative #2):
> 
> OLD TEXT:
> 
> "The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
>   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer.  Other
>   usage is unspecified."
> 
> 
> NEW TEXT:
> 
> "The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
>   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer.  Other
>   usage is unspecified. If an implementation receives, within
> an offer or answer, a bundled "m=“ line with a non-zero port value
> 
> and an ‘bundle-only’ attribute associated with the “m=“ line, the
> implementation MUST ignore the attribute."
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> On 10/01/17 15:18, "mmusic on behalf of Christer Holmberg"
> <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Adam,
>> 
>> My suggestion would be alternative #2. Because, if an endpoint supports
>> the attribute it doesn¹t really matter what the port value is, so there is
>> no need to reject the m- line.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> 
>> On 29/12/16 23:15, "mmusic on behalf of Adam Roach"
>> <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> We've recently come across an issue with the way the "bundle-only"
>>> attribute is described in the current document. The current language
>>> regarding port handling reads:
>>> 
>>>   The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
>>>   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer. Other
>>>   usage is unspecified.
>>> 
>>> Usually, when we have this kind of language, we still ensure that
>>> behavior is well defined, to help avoid unnecessary interop failures. I
>>> see a couple of different options here:
>>> 
>>> 1. Remove the final sentence and add language saying that creators of
>>>   SDP MUST NOT include a "bundle-only" attribute in an m-section that
>>>   has a non-zero port, and that recipients of such SDP {SHOULD,MUST}
>>>   reject it; or
>>> 
>>> 2. Retain language saying that including a "bundle-only" attribute in a
>>>   non-zero m-section is unspecified, but add normative language along
>>>   the lines of: "implementations that receive an m-section with a
>>>   non-zero port that also contains a 'bundle-only' attribute MUST
>>>   ignore the {attribute,port}."
>>> 
>>> I don't have a preference between these choices, but I think we do need
>>> clarity. To be absolutely clear, this feedback is based on actual
>>> implementation interop failures in the field. This problem is not
>>> theoretical.
>>> 
>>> /a
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic