Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

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