Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sun, 06 March 2016 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540D91B3B11 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:28:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ieCQxQ9vjGq5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8E81B3B10 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.107]) by resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id SmUK1s00C2Ka2Q501mUKYv; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:28:19 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([73.218.51.154]) by resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id SmUK1s0073KdFy101mUKLR; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:28:19 +0000
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <CABcZeBO4FEACT851653xA5=onorvPe30Hoc6Lp79KRftRtoZGA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E591A9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E59A2E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBMfvvhQmF4+G+9fXfDHq50caBqP3wG=nVNVTD-m0=4iew@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E5BC45@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBMZ2Z9Rgzx_4FWKyEE51SC=DXC18Kwzqah6L1xxX311BQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E5C221@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBOe8SPa0XBuaah+dFWGWx318xmLKosA4SsPjTZ_iYuLbg@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E787FB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <56DCAF02.5010200@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 17:28:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E787FB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1457303299; bh=eQ7dBTro+fQNbZtVMp79S+1l7Pt7+xbPGDIsDtZyEZ0=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=l8b9iB6uidGtXhpU4U0+H9F3uudOWY+Qouv0zePqKNzLqrgkMlSFcnQIbeakkukjm zhaGazh9y6+Lyi3U2IasFqlhJmlG1lUM2Fky3DVnbUIJDG2/5vsz7oO4a1QcBph4zp lQhZ/QkdWf1DQydlXMWJxUqGK21ERnpfhFJ7k0fmVSyzAipx7a1ZYOvSqORwYs5pAI tq8cYu39G5Pc6VKg4CaIG9TKhlJo6v1ZnYEK1tAriKhPthohcM0hUIPTxRsozkD/8i YAwDark0ZVMttA4mlyueI0w1nVlaGGbDQDhreAly+rHaK15Hc88+mcr82kvsYHb0dd souCPRWCQHucg==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/b5_lgLiQaLumq5kYygVxPUVoyg8>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:28:22 -0000

On 3/5/16 1:59 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>> S1.
>>     The offerer and answerer [RFC3264] use the BUNDLE extension to
>>     negotiate the BUNDLE addresses, one for the offerer (offerer BUNDLE
>>     address) and one for the answerer (answerer BUNDLE address), to be
>>     used for receiving the bundled media associated with a BUNDLE group.
>>
>> S 5.
>>     All media associated with a BUNDLE group share a single 5-tuple, i.e.
>>     in addition to using a single address:port combination all bundled
>>     media MUST be transported using the same transport-layer protocol
>
> In those cases the text talks about the MEDIA, not SDP parameters. I am happy to change it to something else, but I am not sure whether we could say "media attached to the bundle group", "media that appears in the bundle group" or "media that is a member of the bundle group"?

How about "media {described / identified / specified} by the bundle group"?

>>> - You suggest saying "attribute appearing in m- line". Such terminology has been used in the past, and I was asked to change it, because attributes are not part of m- lines.
>>
>> I would recommend the JSEP terminology of "appearing within an m= section"
>> In any case, the problem is the use of "associated" here. Feel free to use
>> another term that's not "associated"
>
> "m= line" is used throughout the document, so I don't want to change that to "m= section", because I don't think it can be done with a simple search/replace.
>
> At one point I think I suggested "media description", which would include both the "m=" line and the attributes. Then we could have said "within the media description", "add to the media description", etc. But, people weren't happy with that either.
>
> Whatever change I do, it has to be something that EVERYONE agrees with. Otherwise, when X reviews the document, I may end up having to change it all again...
>
> I know that at least Paul and Flemming have had comments on the terminology, so I'd like to get some input from them.

Yes, I was one of the people that had problems with prior terminology. 
And "associated" seemed to work at the time.

I agree that now we do have a problem with "associated" being used in 
other contexts to mean something different, and the result again being 
confusing.

I am not attached to "associated", as long as we end up with something 
clear, that uses the same terminology consistently for a concept, and 
clearly different terminology for *different* concepts. But it is hard. 
So I share Christer's desire to be conservative about making changes now.

So I guess I would prefer to keep with "associated with an m= line" for 
attributes and the like that follow an m-line, and something different 
for other uses of "associated", especially in the same sentence or 
paragraph.

	Thanks,
	Paul