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

[Lishitao <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:32 AM
> To: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for
> 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 attributes.
> 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 using
> separate media lines but requires that something new be defined for m=bundle.
> What about RTCP
> > characteristics?  We certainly want to specify them per (old) media line.
> >
> > I understand that this can be done with m=bundle, but it requires new syntax.
> 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).

Regards
shitao