Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Thank You! :)

I will submit a new version shortly.

Regards,

Christer

From: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
Sent: keskiviikko 1. joulukuuta 2021 23.37
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06

This works for me as well. I just want to make sure that the problem is described.

Thank you, Christer.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:46 AM Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Roman/Justin, can you live with the suggestion based on Paul's comment, i.e., replace:

"Therefore, the  3PCC  controller SHOULD rewrite the subsequent BUNDLE Offer into a valid
  initial BUNDLE Offer, following the procedures in Section 7.2, before it
  forwards the BUNDLE Offer to a UA.  In the rewritten BUNDLE Offer the
  3PCC controller will set the port value to zero (and include an SDP
  'bundle-only' attribute) for each "m=" section within the BUNDLE group,
  excluding the offerer-tagged "m=" section."

...with:

"Therefore, the 3PCC controller SHOULD take actions to mitigate this
  problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid
  initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE
  offer to a UA."

If not, please go into compromise mode and try to suggest something that would make anyone happy. I really don't want the work to get delayed because of this.

The IMPORTANT thing is to point out the PROBLEM - one endpoint sends a subsequent offer, and another endpoints expects an initial offer -and to give an EXAMPLE on how it CAN be solved. It's fine if someone wants to solve the problem in some other way, as long as it works...

Regards,

Christer



-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: tiistai 30. marraskuuta 2021 18.24
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06

Christer,

On 11/29/21 2:00 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Since the issue is introduced by BUNDLE, I think we should say more
> than simply "the 3PCC has to do something".
>
> I am fine to change the current procedure from a SHOULD to an example,
> but I do think we should include some guidance.
>
> For example:
>
> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller needs to take actions to mitigate this
> problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid
> initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE
> offer to a UA."
>
> (I have no strong opinion on whether we use "3GPP controller needs to"
> or "3GPP controller SHOULD".)

That works for me. My problem with the earlier text was that it described *a* solution as if it was *the* solution that would solve the problem, when there are potential problems it doesn't solve.

Changing it to be one example improves it.

There could be a longer discussion about what kinds of things could go wrong and how to mitigate each. But that may be overkill.

        Thanks,
        Paul

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic