Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting with bundling
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 11 March 2013 19:31 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 7314711E8218 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, 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 2nsjDxPt84je for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:31:42 -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 A8AF211E8217 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id AEgY1l0031c6gX854KXish; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:31:42 +0000
Received: from dhcp-11c0.meeting.ietf.org ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:7520:2a01:6017:c905]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id AKXh1l01P3L1XU23jKXhHq; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:31:42 +0000
Message-ID: <513E311E.4080204@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:31:42 +0800
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <201303110237.r2B2btIS180463@shell01.TheWorld.com> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EB73DA@US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EB73DA@US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
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=1363030302; bh=vRCQEWbieE+svMvAn0BjOuzG3CSxt0SqM1hM+wnCMOI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=KLPw1rE72gqyrrNcoSzlPI7L+BT9sLT0175LghBFTwWgwPOWli7aWoONNcCMYZm5c 9mm0UYyT/tBxLnLFAfapv5yIKolpazm7yKJfbZ3Q+P2ipxzvYIREp5BhpjcqA8X8d8 AY+t7oaCYwFRblTTJnih1JyMTM5/yzOPspObOTVSFDrVwX55PCpVOIENkX0ba7CWVT NE49jQb1sCUA/swpfN18YrM4+060I6VjMypRMqhhBN71wDPX06tMaXEDAJBlLYgip+ y0kUvYpr7+yoxZFlwTxIreV1yagTGpKdHgOG19lq9cMCQjcDlYcBHzb78FkWgus9sm AJJzITtMAhnng==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting with bundling
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, 11 Mar 2013 19:31:43 -0000
On 3/12/13 2:21 AM, Ejzak, Richard P (Richard) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Dale R. Worley > > >> it does not see media. (It does not suffice for the answerer to >> provide a null transport address and non-zero port for the MD, or for >> the answerer to send "a=inactive", as an intermediate entity may see >> the MD as being accepted and expect the offerer to send RTCP.) >> > > Considering the following text from RFC 3264: > > "Of course, when used, the port number MUST NOT be zero, which would specify that the stream has been disabled. An agent MUST be capable of receiving SDP with a connection address of 0.0.0.0, in which case it means that neither RTP nor RTCP should be sent to the peer." > > There is no ambiguity here about the meaning of zero port. > > While this text could be interpreted to not specifically preclude the peer that indicates an unspecified address from sending RTCP to the peer indicating a valid address, this seems really far-fetched to me. Sending this RTCP would be pointless and wasteful since by definition it would have nothing to report on and there is no possibility to receive reports. > > If would be nice to eliminate this ambiguity by ending the quoted sentence "...neither RTP nor RTCP should be sent to either peer." AFAIK it was never the intent that a zero address on one end would block media flow in the other direction. Thanks, Paul > The text also says that the peer indicating an unspecified address "...doesn't know the addresses and ports at the time..." Again, it seems like a real stretch to assume that the peer can send RTCP if it doesn't have an address or port available for receipt of RTP. > > Richard > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Dale R. Worley
- [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting wit… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Stach, Thomas
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting… Suhas Nandakumar