Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session

"Parthasarathi R" <> Fri, 21 September 2012 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A27021F86F5 for <>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.132
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3BObKIa+HrQ3 for <>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEA421F86FA for <>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7E67986864B; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:26:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120823; t=1348244778; bh=o9zdOSRVZHa6vPXIeHosvmVoDEGf/tbDJsRXjjgdVyg=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=DpV0Gz/TneF5xpFAikughAJ/EH5b35869Lq78qqHiPVaDcF9YfZ8O3jMT7LaO9iKw wI/Rb0gfTw2edU86qL8c+DzK9uvUpO7B1cVIY0r7qbC4HPzhsF9GidkgYv5hUMD0bl noBuW2fwWCnXVqemowheqwZ3u8jwVRGbI1pCOqtU=
From: Parthasarathi R <>
To: 'Lishitao' <>, 'Christer Holmberg' <>, "'Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)'" <>,
References: <> <> <BLU401-EAS1263CBF056291C5313CA95193CD0@phx.gbl> <> <BLU002-W14079A44079EFA284B8E94793CC0@phx.gbl> <> <>, <BLU401-EAS1449593A32E42F2871B483E93BC0@phx.gbl> <> <>, <> <>, <> <>, <> <>, <> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340 9FF2F9E@ESESSCMS0356.e>, <> <>, <> <>, <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:56:04 +0530
Message-ID: <000001cd9815$d0882190$719864b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B020B.505C952A.014F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:26:20 -0000

I agree with Cullen & others that m=bundle does not have consensus. We need
more discussion and analysis. The current Bundle syntax is designed in a way

to reuse lot of existing SDP mechanism (Syntax & Semantics). If possible,
us try to fix the open issue with the current mechanism before proceeding 
with m=bundle approach.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:21 AM
To: Christer Holmberg; Ejzak, Richard P (Richard);
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line
for bundled session

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:32 AM
> To: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard);
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line
> bundled session
> Hi,
> >>> m=bundle requires significant extensions to the syntax and also a near
> >>> doubling in the size of the SDP.  It is harder to specify allowed
> >>> combinations of codecs and other options that are normally associated
> >>> with a single m line.
> >>
> >> Please give an example.
> >
> > To specify two types of audio flows with very different characteristics
I would
> normally have separate media lines with separate codec lists and
> One may require DTMF and the other silence suppression in addition to the
> selected (but different)
> > codecs.  We need to keep this characteristic.  We also need a way of
> specifying bandwidth per (old) media line, which is already supported
> separate media lines but requires that something new be defined for
> What about RTCP
> > characteristics?  We certainly want to specify them per (old) media
> >
> > I understand that this can be done with m=bundle, but it requires new
> Why bother if we have something that can work?
> I am not sure it requires new syntax, if you e.g. can use the ssrc
attribute in
> order to map attributes to specific flows.

I would suggest that put the m=bundle proposal in a separate new personal
draft or in the annex of the existing working draft, and 
make a comparison for this proposal and the existing proposal. That will
make it more clear.
For the existing proposal, I believe that people are not totally against,
although it has some issues. (the m=bundle proposal also has some issues).


mmusic mailing list