Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

I was looking for some sort of language or note similar to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8839#section-7.5. This note should
say that when the endpoint receives a mid-dialog re-INVITE that contains no
offer, it MUST use the rules for generating the initial SDP offers (
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-02.html#section-7.2).
In some sense, we are preserving RFC8843 behavior for subsequent offers if
these offers are generated due to a mid-dialog re-INVITE that contains no
offer.

Best Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:17 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 6/18/21 2:52 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > Regarding offers for 3PPC, I think sending an initial offer needs to be
> > a generic O/A rule. I don’t think we can have SDP extension-specific
> rules.
>
> I agree this *ought* to be a generic recommendation. But I don't think
> it is. So I think it would be helpful to say it in this document.
>
> Note that this would be a recommendation (MAY). It can't really be
> mandatory, since for an initial offer the offerer has almost complete
> discretion.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 17, 2021 11:40:50 PM
> > *To:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=[e-mail]>rg>;
> Christer
> > Holmberg <[e-mail]>
> > *Cc:* mmusic <[e-mail]>
> > *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00
> > Hi Christer,
> >
> > I have reviewed the document and document changes look good in removing
> > the inconsistencies with JSEP.
> >
> > One question that I do have is related to third-party call control and
> > generating offers in response to INVITE with no SDP body. This is not
> > covered anywhere in this document. In order to work correctly thes
> > offers should be constructed the same ways as initial offers with
> > separate addresses and ports allocated for all m= lines which are not
> > bundle-only and port zero and bundle-only attribute set on all the
> > bundle-only m= lines.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > _____________
> > Roman Shpount
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:09 PM Flemming Andreasen
> > <fandreas=[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Greetings MMUSIC
> >
> >     This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
> >
> >     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-00.txt
> >
> >
> >     as Proposed Standard. Please note that changes in the document are
> >     limited to what was agreed to at IET110 for JSEP alignment plus any
> >     verified erratas. Please review and provide any comments you may
> >     have on the document by Tuesday, June 1, 2021. Comments should be
> >     sent to the document authors and the MMUSIC WG list. If you review
> >     the document but do not have any comments, please send a note to
> >     that effect as well.
> >
> >     Thanks
> >
> >     -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     mmusic mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>