Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions

Hi,

as far as I can tell, I do not think relaxing that rule would break
implementations. When we wrote RFC 3388 (RFC 5888's predecessor), there
were some concerns about the size of SDP offers and answers. That is why
it was considered good practice to keep implementations from adding
information that was believed not to be useful.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 23/05/2013 8:11 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> 
> On 5/13/13 11:01 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 5/13/13 3:27 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So, assuming we are going to update RFC 5888 (whatever the exact
>>> wording would be), would we do that within draft-bundle, or within a
>>> separate document?
>>
>> That question always comes up, doesn't it?
>>
>> IMO this could probably be handled in the bundle draft, since it is a
>> small change and by the same wg. But it isn't my call. This question
>> should be addressed by the chairs and the ADs.
>>
> I'd like to hear from the RFC 5888 authors about the motivation for this
> restriction in RFC 5888 before we decide to get rid of it (certainly in
> general, but also more specifically for bundle). Following that, if
> there is still a desire to remove the restriction in general, and not
> just for bundle, then my preference would be do it in a separate document
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- Flemming
> 
> 
> 
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>>> Sent: 11. toukokuuta 2013 3:40
>>> To: Jonathan Lennox
>>> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Weekly Summary: Assumptions
>>>
>>> On 5/10/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>      I struggled to find it too. It's in 9.2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          SIP entities refuse media streams by setting the port to
>>>>>> zero in the
>>>>>>          corresponding "m" line. "a=group" lines MUST NOT contain
>>>>>>          identification-tags that correspond to "m" lines with the
>>>>>> port
>>>>>>      set to
>>>>>>          zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This feels like something we could relax for the offer.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could relax it. The question is if the change will break any
>>>>> existing use. That is a hard question to answer.
>>>>
>>>> We could say that whether it's valid must be defined by the group
>>>> semantic, and for all existing group semantics it's not.
>>>
>>> WFM
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> .
>>
> 