Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions

On 5/13/13 7:48 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few questions, assuming we allow port zero m- lines within a bundle.

IMO we should try to keep mechanisms as flexible and independent of one 
another as possible. Answers below are based on that.

> Q1:
>
> Is the decision tied to whether we move forward with Plan A or Plan B?

No. Why should it be?

> Q2:
>
> Do we allow port zero only for "bundle-only" m- lines, or for m- lines in general?

Any m-lines. I can't see any reason to be restrictive.

> Q3:
>
> If we allow port zero only for "bundle-only" m- lines, is there a technical need to allow it in SDP answers?

Again, keep things separate and clear. If I'm offered a bundled m-line 
with non-zero port, and want to reject it, I should be able to do so by 
setting the port to zero, just as if it was not bundled. Independently, 
if I'm offered a bundled m-line I may need to exclude it from the 
bundle, and I should be able to make that decision while either 
accepting or rejecting the m-line.

> Q4:
>
> We need to keep in mind that there is always a chance that the "top-most" m- line within a bundle group is a port zero one.

What is the question?

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: 13. toukokuuta 2013 10:27
> To: Paul Kyzivat; Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
>
> Hi,
>
> So, assuming we are going to update RFC 5888 (whatever the exact wording would be), would we do that within draft-bundle, or within a separate document?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 11. toukokuuta 2013 3:40
> To: Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
>
> On 5/10/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
>>>>      I struggled to find it too.  It's in 9.2:
>>>>
>>>>          SIP entities refuse media streams by setting the port to zero in the
>>>>          corresponding "m" line. "a=group" lines MUST NOT contain
>>>>          identification-tags that correspond to "m" lines with the port
>>>>      set to
>>>>          zero.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This feels like something we could relax for the offer.
>>>
>>> We could relax it. The question is if the change will break any
>>> existing use. That is a hard question to answer.
>>
>> We could say that whether it's valid must be defined by the group semantic, and for all existing group semantics it's not.
>
> WFM
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>