IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Suggestion to moving ahead with BUNDLE

Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <Christian.Groves@nteczone.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 1277821F86CF for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:45:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 WriKK2eUO7au for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCD521F86CE for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:45:37 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBANiTM0920feW/2dsb2JhbAAMOLIcAQEBBAEBATUbGwoRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMBMGAgEBF4dquS6LTCcBAgIJDQEFBAMEBAcOBgEDCAEBJYNkIAkCAQciJoMdBKgm
Received: from ppp118-209-247-150.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([118.209.247.150]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2012 20:15:36 +1030
Message-ID: <4F3395B8.1030905@nteczone.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:45:28 +1100
From: Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C3D31B9B3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C3D31B9B3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Suggestion to moving ahead with BUNDLE
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:45:39 -0000

There's a few nits but the draft is a good starting point.

Regards, Christian

On 1/02/2012 12:08 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the Taipei IETF I presented the BUNDLE draft, written by myself and Harald, which extends the SDP grouping framework in order to allow the usage of identical port values in multiple m- lines in an SDP offer/answer.
>
>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-multiplex-negotiation-00.txt
>
> It can be used when negotiating the usage of multiplexing of multiple media streams. Such mechanism is very likely going to be needed e.g. in the work being done in RTCWEB.
>
> When presented, some people indicated that they may want to look at other alternatives.
>
> However, as no alternative solutions have been brought forward since then, my question is whether people now would be interested in moving ahead with the BUNDLE mechanism, and adopt the above draft as a starting point?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email