Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities

Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <fandreas@cisco.com>
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 56D9D12DD62 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:46:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 OWoNN0qm9ZWV for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A027E12DD60 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:46:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21056; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457642784; x=1458852384; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=p2Pn4CEthDWFwiqKm4njED6foXXZIDWIGmt6M1b3IRM=; b=EK8CLK/a6BFnxljsXQMqhLzcnE8QRqc45bZHZAC5lteSTvqTmyHmFzqH RaSLkjSE2oyONH6DXEen7dRm5CvKSnl47rL4QmNan2ZGTSO4WnsabA/M7 WKuBrSaHp++uJWLJACgBpFNViDSMmWvguAawEfId3Jf5mE7cQrgBLtnfR s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AFAgAo3OFW/5tdJa1eDoJkTFJtumMBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFtFwEJhSRKAoFFOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQQEBAQMBAQEBKkEQBwQLEQQBAQEJHgc?= =?us-ascii?q?PAhYfAwEFCAYBDAYCAQGIGAgOvRwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQERBIYYh?= =?us-ascii?q?EKIdAWHXYZKiRWFaogOgWSER4MChVKOah4BAUKCAxmBDVkeLolTAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.24,317,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="79777716"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Mar 2016 20:46:22 +0000
Received: from [10.98.149.198] (bxb-fandreas-8815.cisco.com [10.98.149.198]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2AKkLl9030157; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:46:22 GMT
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "Eric Rescorla (ekr@rtfm.com)" <ekr@rtfm.com>
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> <56DCAF02.5010200@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E81B18@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E85B18@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <56DE4CAB.7070503@cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E90164@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56E1DD1D.70605@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:21 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E90164@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030706050603070109080507"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/cg5M6I6ma34_xYZzDWA4bE2HLKM>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle rejection oddities
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:46:27 -0000

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:fandreas@cisco.com>
> Sent: ‎08/‎03/‎2016 05:53
> To: Christer Holmberg <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Paul 
> Kyzivat <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>; mmusic@ietf.org 
> <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>; Eric Rescorla (ekr@rtfm.com) 
> <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>
> 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:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer 
> Holmberg
> > Sent: 7. maaliskuuta 2016 10:32
> > To: Paul Kyzivat; mmusic@ietf.org
> > 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
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > .
> >
>