[MMUSIC] "splitting" a bundle

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 09 April 2013 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B1921F91D4 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xZTEgZfU2L6q for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7968821F91CF for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.51]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MnMk1l00316LCl059v6mMa; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:06:46 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Mv6m1l00m3ZTu2S3Sv6mS5; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:06:46 +0000
Message-ID: <516466C5.1070201@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 03:06:45 +0800
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <201304091539.r39FdjqJ2253833@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <201304091539.r39FdjqJ2253833@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1365534406; bh=sJlL6zyH/8e/8f7lLrFUIlKrT9W/Kk7uS2Qv2CUCzd4=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=aVHZk9q8EmUobLCBWwnce8nl8uRb7oMKic0fTCRLa/ict8ZdjIcTPoxFeO05pjiBn yudRnlOf7jB55kaN5V6ELy7MqGMPQ9mCeb3V1yjWjhL9aCEXVc+jfRtjrVyV8J1VS6 Shfj8g0NjgDJ6CeMvE9OdOeeOSEu548z1qeU2rl+k14qe1UBld9mXs1gfxFTA0kk4o tPhSCklmNlSBLDRghAIByq6GjAZeQ8tMIjBRObxwXJM568hA903OcrFjFyeBX9ZCB3 zOGvRAduvGDMy6q13j95OuwtbMB9wFV3TNlGKADuOmAPC8dnhWwvBwwndan5y21puq 10dAHdn31OC/Q==
Subject: [MMUSIC] "splitting" a bundle
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:06:48 -0000

I'd like to add to the cases that Dale lists below.

This has come up in CLUE, and pertains to cases where not all media 
processing equipment is at the same address. In such cases bundling may 
be supported, but more than one bundle may be required.

When this happens on the offering end the offerer can propose multiple 
bundles from the beginning. But when it is the answerer that needs 
things in separate bundles then it will need to "split" (partition) the 
offered bundle into multiple bundles. You can view this as a variant of 
(1)+(3) below.

Conceptually this isn't complex. But given the o/a rules in the grouping 
framework I don't think it ca be achieved in the answer to the offer 
that proposes a single bundle. It could be accomplished by:

- process the first answer in accord with (1) below - accepting the
   m-lines that can go into one bundle, and rejecting (port=0) the
   others.

- send a 2nd offer, with one bundle including the previously accepted
   m-lines, and a separate bundle for the previously rejected m-lines.
   Since mutual support of bundle is now presumed, this 2nd offer can
   use a single addr/port, and a single set of ice candidates, for
   all the m-lines in each bundle.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 4/9/13 11:39 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>     DES F7  If an answerer that does understand the bundle mechanism
>        processes an offer that contains a bundle, it must be able to (1)
>        accept the bundle and selectively accept or reject each
>        constituent RTP session within it, (2) reject the bundle as a
>        whole, or (3) reject the bundling and selectively accept or reject
>        each constituent RTP session as separate RTP sessions.
>
>     Presumably answer (3) resembles that which would be produced by an
>     answerer that does not understand the bundle mechanism.  It is a
>     lower priority that the answerer can distinguish between accepting
>     the bundle while rejecting all of its constituents, and rejecting the
>     bundle as a whole.  But those two conditions differ conceptually
>     regarding whether any "framing" actions of the bundle are performed.
>
> Comments?
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>