Re: [MMUSIC] RID simplification re: PT

Like Peter, I prefer the simpler rule of only making pt=* immutable. But I can also accept the original proposal.

Regarding order of PTs in a=rid lines, it may be useful to have preferences per RID which differ from the m= line order.

Mo

On Dec 17, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com<mailto:suhasietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com<mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
I am also fine with the proposal, including Magnus's tweak of allowing removal of PTs via the m= line and removing RIDs that have an empty set of PTs.

However, having thought about it some more, I think the following rule would be more simple and suffice those implementers seeking sensibility:  "If the offer a=rid line contains pt=*, the corresponding answer a=rid line must contain pt=*".

In other words, if the offer has "pt=A,B", the answer *can* remove A or B on a per-rid level with "pt=A" or "pt=B", but if an offerer does not want to support reduction of payload types, it can simply put in "pt=*".?  This allows more control of a=rid lines in the answer than the originally proposed rule (in the case where an implementation decides to support pt= other than pt=*), but it still allows implementations the sensible ease of putting "pt=*" in the offer and not allowing reduction, but with a more simple rule.

Would that also work?  Or am I missing something?  If I am and that rule doesn't work, I still support the original proposal (with Magnus's tweak).

And by the way, does the order of the PTs in a RID line even matter?  What effect would the answer reordering the PTs even have?

The ordering of the PTs in an rid line shouldn't matter .. Not able to think where it matters
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic