Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: meaning of "unspecified" when describing "bundle-only"

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 11 July 2017 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B779129B55 for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJ074bsRFJRj for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689BD129B30 for <>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-71bff70000001664-37-5964d6b0bed2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CF.5D.05732.0B6D4695; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:46:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:46:23 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, Adam Roach <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: meaning of "unspecified" when describing "bundle-only"
Thread-Index: AQHSa0QA09pHndxnh0aKl8R4w17a+aJP0qmA
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:46:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7k+6GaymRBq/6VSz2/F3EbjF1+WMW ByaPJUt+MnnM2vmEJYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj/Z2JTAUr5CqunPrN0sB4RLaLkZNDQsBE Yvf6ZWxdjFwcQgJHGCWm9ixngXAWM0osOjeNsYuRg4NNwEKi+582SIOIQI1Ex60DrCC2sECY xI7te5kg4uESn783sEDYRhIHus+BxVkEVCXef7wGFucVsJbY0dTDBmILCRRIvFryghHE5hSw kThyZgOYzSggJvH91BqwXmYBcYlbT+YzQRwqILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wgp4kK6Em82+8JEVaU +PhqHyNEq5bElx/72CBsa4lljRtYIGxFiSndD9khzhGUODnzCcsERrFZSLbNQtI+C0n7LCTt s5C0L2BkXcUoWpxanJSbbmSkl1qUmVxcnJ+nl5dasokRGFUHt/w22MH48rnjIUYBDkYlHt4L +1MihVgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nw/r4IFOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM7ruO9ChJBAemJJ anZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoHReeH6qc12nJxNQuuu+9wOkpO+NL1n6s47NvGbnV+HNd38vMXs6Sm7 4mvxHUVlr+wLNqx8v7h3bZPz9yxrxosNeR1saQsEtHPj5UuK/58SjDl29e1jy1nyB83fzZP8 KnNzQ/TeN/wKoduPqRzRTC01L+J86s/VlhuexeP1Y87MyxNk3zlmLElVYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA cecsNqYCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: meaning of "unspecified" when describing "bundle-only"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:46:28 -0000


It took a while, but here is my suggestion (based on alternative #2):


"The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer.  Other
   usage is unspecified."


"The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer.  Other
   usage is unspecified. If an implementation receives, within
an offer or answer, a bundled "m=“ line with a non-zero port value

and an ‘bundle-only’ attribute associated with the “m=“ line, the
implementation MUST ignore the attribute."



On 10/01/17 15:18, "mmusic on behalf of Christer Holmberg"
< on behalf of>

>Hi Adam,
>My suggestion would be alternative #2. Because, if an endpoint supports
>the attribute it doesn¹t really matter what the port value is, so there is
>no need to reject the m- line.
>On 29/12/16 23:15, "mmusic on behalf of Adam Roach"
>< on behalf of> wrote:
>>We've recently come across an issue with the way the "bundle-only"
>>attribute is described in the current document. The current language
>>regarding port handling reads:
>>    The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
>>    bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer. Other
>>    usage is unspecified.
>>Usually, when we have this kind of language, we still ensure that
>>behavior is well defined, to help avoid unnecessary interop failures. I
>>see a couple of different options here:
>> 1. Remove the final sentence and add language saying that creators of
>>    SDP MUST NOT include a "bundle-only" attribute in an m-section that
>>    has a non-zero port, and that recipients of such SDP {SHOULD,MUST}
>>    reject it; or
>> 2. Retain language saying that including a "bundle-only" attribute in a
>>    non-zero m-section is unspecified, but add normative language along
>>    the lines of: "implementations that receive an m-section with a
>>    non-zero port that also contains a 'bundle-only' attribute MUST
>>    ignore the {attribute,port}."
>>I don't have a preference between these choices, but I think we do need
>>clarity. To be absolutely clear, this feedback is based on actual
>>implementation interop failures in the field. This problem is not
>>mmusic mailing list
>mmusic mailing list