Re: [MMUSIC] Suggestion to moving ahead with BUNDLE

I agree this is an important problem to solve, and I like the clean
approach proposed in this document.

We have implemented an initial version of this functionality without much
difficulty and would like to see this proposal move forward.

--justin

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> > Sent: 31. tammikuuta 2012 15:09
> > To: mmusic@ietf.org
> > Subject: [MMUSIC] Suggestion to moving ahead with BUNDLE
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > At the Taipei IETF I presented the BUNDLE draft, written by myself and
> Harald, which extends the SDP grouping framework in order to allow the
> usage of identical port values in multiple m- lines in an SDP offer/answer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-multiplex-negotiation-00.txt
> >
> > It can be used when negotiating the usage of multiplexing of multiple
> media streams. Such mechanism is very likely going to be needed e.g. in the
> work being done in RTCWEB.
> >
> > When presented, some people indicated that they may want to look at
> other alternatives.
> >
> > However, as no alternative solutions have been brought forward since
> then, my question is whether people now would be interested in moving ahead
> with the BUNDLE mechanism, and adopt the above draft as a starting point?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Christer
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic