Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting with bundling

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
>