Re: [MMUSIC] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-51: (with COMMENT) - Pull request on tagged m- section selection

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 A187F126DCA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 05:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hlCbe_3U1iBw for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 05:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B312412DA69 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2018 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1527077264; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8neBIW9ZKCM7h+eZzZYQBwz7QRest0CM/icGJ0YYDXc=; b=cnhFnRlZES9okwxSs7YiPIZgPHBD11RFSkMD3RzZlrMOj+1N0frPkshJmiNs9NRR 2ghPBRDBTt8NMkBSHOL0XpXyaJ3PSOMEGlDxQd4zRh3jn1Z0ApfTHSWwA2tacPDX 6nNEuD7CXVAYSR4GXbj3WmFXQfcrqSL7ftsM5HUL+Jw=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-932519c0000065fb-df-5b05598fbe7f
Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.54]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 30.E6.26107.F89550B5; Wed, 23 May 2018 14:07:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.29]) by ESESSHC012.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 23 May 2018 14:07:15 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-51: (with COMMENT) - Pull request on tagged m- section selection
Thread-Index: AdPyjpaKBfaMlnM+STqeBSraKD9r4A==
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:07:14 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B72F027FE@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.171]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7me6ESNZog/m7uCymz3rHZrHi9Tl2 i/cXdC1m/JnIbHF+53omi6nLH7M4sHlM+b2R1WPJkp9MHpMftzEHMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVw ZZw6fZuxYIFBxeJj39kaGBv0uxg5OCQETCSWfuXpYuTiEBI4wihxdn0XaxcjJ5CzmFFi6mxv kBo2AQuJ7n/aIKaIQJjEtc1cIOXMAi1MEhcev2cDcYQFZjFKPPxwmx3EERGYzSjReGILE8gg EQE9iZeTv7KB2CwCqhJvXz8Fs3kFfCX2bP7KDGIzCohJfD+1BqyeWUBc4taT+WC2hICAxJI9 55khbFGJl4//sULYShInHjYyg1zELKApsX6XPkSrosSU7ofsEOMFJU7OfMIygVF4FpKpsxA6 ZiHpmIWkYwEjyypG0eLU4qTcdCMjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwBg5uOW3wQ7Gl88dDzEKcDAq 8fB2eLJGC7EmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLhPfWHJVqINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I4r4Xf5igh gfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo5Oy0Jn4abtUmRtvreQ9IO/17t/+j8bnK3rvfPnJsVv394V9 dzXP7a5OnCVt8/R/n/26WOsLISJL431aJVQO7fn/7ERZ8FkRvTsL2reUB77RuZZftqZm4dIP jHIZ0dZfv9kknagNWhvlJSNSx+x6Uumo1YOpHKJeks+N1x85fSrWOnpt1kq2eUosxRmJhlrM RcWJAH5WjJyNAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Zl8TLSNp5LuGnkHcgDnyeMYMXN0>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-51: (with COMMENT) - Pull request on tagged m- section selection
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 23 May 2018 12:07:55 -0000

Pull request created:

https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/61

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com] 
Sent: 23 May 2018 09:33
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org; mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-51: (with COMMENT)

Hi,

>>>>>>>   [Section 7.3.1] as the answerer tagged "m=" section.  In the 
>>>>>>>answer
>>>>>>>   the answerer BUNDLE-tag indicates the answerer tagged "m=" section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm having trouble reading this paragraph. How do you select an m= section that correspond to the selected m= section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The n:th m- line in an answer corresponds to the n:th m- line in the offer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was some discussion about the terminology, and “corresponds” was the outcome.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I did find a small nit in the text, though:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> s/”section in that”/”section that”
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that this paragraph just is too hard to read. My 
>>>>> problem isn't corresponds, it's "select" and "selected" together. 
>>>>> Can you rewrite it so that it's clearer. Maybe just indicating that one is is the offer and one is in the answer?
>>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>>   The answerer MUST select the "m=" section *in the answer* that 
>>>>corresponds to the
>>>>   selected offerer tagged "m=" section in the corresponding offer
>>>>   [Section 7.3.1] as the answerer tagged "m=" section.  In the 
>>>>answer
>>>>   the answerer BUNDLE-tag indicates the answerer tagged "m=" section.
>>>
>>> This seems clearer, but I'm not sure what "selected" is doing in "selected offerer tagged". Can you explain?
>>
>> The answerer first selects the offer tagged "m=" section, as 
>> described in section 7.3.1. After that, it selects the corresponding "m=" section in the answer as the answerer tagged "m=" section.
>
> Well, the use of "selected" here in both cases is super-confusing.
>
> I think what would be easiest would simply be to merge these two 
> sections. I.e., the answerer determines (it actually doesn't "select") the tagged m= section and then places it in its own answer.

"Selected" is a terminology we spent quite a bit of time discussing back in the days, and it is used throughout the document. 

But, below is a suggestion on to merge the sections, which hopefully will be more clear:


7.3.1.  Answerer Selection of tagged 'm=' sections

   When the answerer selects the offerer tagged "m=" section, it first
   checks the suggested offerer tagged "m=" section [Section 7.2.1].
   The answerer MUST check whether the "m=" section fulfils the
   following criteria:

   o  The answerer will not move the "m=" section out of the BUNDLE
      group [Section 7.3.3]; and

   o  The answerer will not reject the "m=" section [Section 7.3.4]; and

   o  The "m=" section does not contain a zero port value.

   If all of the criteria above are fulfilled, the answerer MUST select
   the "m=" section as the offerer tagged "m=" section. In addition, in
   the corresponding answer, the answerer MUST select the "m=" section that
   corresponds to the offerer tagged "m=" section as the answerer 
   tagged "m=" section. In the answer the answerer BUNDLE-tag indicates the 
   answerer tagged "m=" section.

   If one or more of the criteria are not fulfilled, the answerer MUST
   pick the next identification-tag in the identification-tag list in
   the offer, and perform the same criteria check for the "m=" section
   indicated by that identification-tag.  If there are no more
   identification-tags in the identification-tag list, the answerer MUST
   NOT create the BUNDLE group.  Unless the answerer rejects the whole
   offer, the answerer MUST apply the answerer procedures for moving an
   "m=" section out of a BUNDLE group [Section 7.3.3] or rejecting an
   "m=" section within a BUNDLE group [Section 7.3.4] to every bundled
   "m=" section in the offer when creating the answer.

   [Section 17.1] shows an example of an offerer BUNDLE address:port
   selection.

   [Section 7.3.5] and [Section 17.1] show an example of an answerer
   tagged "m=" section selection.

Regards,

Christer