Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

On 3/7/16 11:41 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Flemming,
>
> Note that I did the change to "specified by" only when talking about 
> media. Parameters etc are still "associated with" m- lines.
>
Right - overall I think readability is improved here, especially where 
you changed "associated" to "corresponding". I'd still prefer keeping 
"associated" when you refer to "m=" lines, but in the interest of moving 
forward, I won't insist on that if EKR is happy with the current text 
and nobody else complains either.

Thanks

-- Flemming (as individual)


> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Flemming Andreasen <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Sent: ‎08/‎03/‎2016 05:53
> To: Christer Holmberg <mailto:[e-mail]>; Paul 
> Kyzivat <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Eric Rescorla ([e-mail]) 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities
>
> Hi Christer
>
> I don't think the change from "associated with ...'m=' line" to
> "specified by ...'m=' line" is a good change (and I thought you were
> against that based on your earlier e-mail too, but the draft I pulled
> from github seems to have made that change). Attributes and other
> parameters are not specified by 'm=' lines; they are indeed "associated"
> with them (or more generally speaking they can be seen as part of the
> media description which is another way of referring to 'm=' line and its
> various "associated" parameters).
>
> I realize the term "associated" is used a lot in the current document
> and it doesn't improve overall readability, however I think technical
> accuracy needs to come first. I don't see the current usage as being
> overloaded, but I'm certainly open to alternative text suggestions as
> long as they are technically sound and we can get everybody (that cares)
> to agree on them.
>
> Lastly, given the substantial amount of work the primary author has put
> into this document, incl. trying to accommodate input from many
> different people, going through multiple WGLCs, etc., I would also ask
> people to be mindful of how much an issue they really see here.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming
>
>
> On 3/7/16 6:36 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've compiled a new version of draft-bundle, where I've replaced 
> "associated" in a number of places.
> >
> > I've not submitted the draft yet, but you can see the changes on github:
> >
> > https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle
> >
> > NOTE: I have not yet added the additional text requested by Ekr - 
> this version only does the terminology changes.
> >
> > Ekr/Paul/Flemming, please indicate whether you are ok or not with 
> the changes.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer 
> Holmberg
> > Sent: 7. maaliskuuta 2016 10:32
> > To: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >>>> 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"?
> > I've probably tried that already in the past too, but if people are 
> ok with it, then fine... :)
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> >>>>> - 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,
> > I agree, and at this point I will actually refuse to change that. 
> But, if someone else wants to take the pen, then fine...
> >
> >> and something different for other uses of "associated", especially 
> in the same sentence or paragraph.
> > I guess we could use "corresponding" when we match offers and 
> answers, and when we match "m=" lines in an offer and answer.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > "Take the value from the corresponding "m=" line in the 
> corresponding offer".
> >
> > Yes, we'd use "corresponding" for two things, but at least we'd get 
> rid of one "associated" usage.
> >
> > But, if someone has another suggestion, please let me know.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > .
> >
>