Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

Hi Harald,

If you only establish a data channel, there is only one m- line, so it is irrelevant whether you are allowed (in the first Offer) to assign the same address to multiple m- lines or not :)

Regards,

Christer

From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: 9. syyskuuta 2013 11:56
To: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

On 09/07/2013 02:14 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
That's what I thought we were talking about. This has the benefit that you don't need to gather STUN/TURN for the other addresses that you know you are going to discard.

Regarding intermediaries, I expect that even for less-well-provisioned WebRTC app providers, there typically won't be any intermediaries, at least none who have access to the signaling traffic.

For instance, I expect a number of applications to work on the following pattern:

- Set up a connection with a data channel only via some relay
- Do all subsequent offer/answer over the data channel

Given the wonderful world of DTLS, we *know* that there are no intermediaries.

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 6 September 2013 12:46, Christer Holmberg
<christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> If you know that the other end supports BUNDLE, then why can't you assign the shared address to each "m=" line already in the FIRST Offer? Why assign unique addresses?
Exactly.  That's what I'd do.
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________

mmusic mailing list

mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic