Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 13 May 2013 15:14 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 6374921F941D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, 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 HsNEM7LqRUwg for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9132321F8E98 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bNnK1l0021HzFnQ54TE707; Mon, 13 May 2013 15:14:07 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bTE61l00l3ZTu2S3aTE6nJ; Mon, 13 May 2013 15:14:07 +0000
Message-ID: <5191033D.4040605@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:14:05 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36B485@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1134DEF4B@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CABcZeBMrgaHGXFi_NRk+znsT-AGnRS5EDLgFhZgGA+VG81BhZw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW=4zNgauXc-=pv9j9zGdVntmb=K22wcRr77wfQc-6J3w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBODcyo-JXqs6EZ-F5BY_TaM94+eu+UqNApFnTNjpehUzA@mail.gmail.com> <518D73E4.4090609@alum.mit.edu> <9D12C4E8-F7C1-4D32-A8AC-570AC86ACA23@vidyo.com> <518D9361.7060301@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36EC03@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36F1EB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C36F1EB@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=1368458047; bh=wGov5ljOe7XmPkWzSG3y1P6n7Oz6on1rUIGMsyHkMJ4=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=ta2oHk4IzaSqdwZdGCf7aAkOjdSSTkiCUHpm6hQgwEAJQeBiBzsXoAfqXojIkt42G +GZuCLwldOALkigIDv39kNPjihAGhUtg0qievkYqs/roIoSZzq5HsKJt/CJhIQUA6o eCZBjfy7ljP3MVHuGwF13bPqZuTGxjDE2z66MTmtevFtpGdmvwh2G64gDAUOAM194D EvXrYKoX4+oHogHM4dDtRB5Uy3yidKOxiNuSbQFuWt3FQphMc991fqWFT0Z33Rn6hF g5Q10DQv4rw1O7pvm8p16kgWjwyzWBqITmyDzX9uv/8eJ+lzFtvSfI6gYgoQLGLAJG vkfGf2o6CBZuw==
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
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: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:14:12 -0000

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
>