IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Fri, 06 September 2013 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
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 B16A711E80FD for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 On6e2Ltv-BAG for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA4611E80F3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-0a-522a311793f4
Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D0.B1.16099.7113A225; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 21:46:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC001.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.21]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 21:46:30 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?
Thread-Index: Ac6n5iNHyF7lWAnpRLasr2xApQPuVQAI/dWAAMXBDgAAAJIvgAAAFjQAAAVnFUA=
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:46:29 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C499BB7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C483C45@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <5224F4BB.8000904@alum.mit.edu> <CAOJ7v-20smCmAYG_be_4g2PwDigXKJu+x6yRkAzPXJ_YHWse-Q@mail.gmail.com> <522A27AB.1020102@alum.mit.edu>, <CABkgnnWA7n7jy9T7cROTZSKrKAc9jCwb=68Whqt7qvVMgCQ8yA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWA7n7jy9T7cROTZSKrKAc9jCwb=68Whqt7qvVMgCQ8yA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja64oVaQwZxLohbXzvxjtJi6/DGL xYoNB1gdmD3+vv/A5LFz1l12jyVLfjIFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZbw4so6pYA53xf7eTsYG xiWcXYycHBICJhJfuyaxQNhiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4zCjx7tU+FghnMaPE9RNLgDIcHGwCFhLd /7RBGkQEQiXaLu5jBAkzC6hLXF0cBGIKC+RLnNzDC1FRIPHn/2R2kLCIgJ/EsSlOICaLgIrE 9pu2IBW8Ar4S8zcvZIfYM5dJYsO+z8wgCU6BQIkrGzrAbEagy76fWsMEYjMLiEvcejKfCeJi AYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFsBUl2p82MELU60gs2P2JDcLWlli28DUzxGJBiZMzn7BMYBSbhWTs LCQts5C0zELSsoCRZRUje25iZk56ueEmRmDEHNzyW3cH46lzIocYpTlYlMR5N+mdCRQSSE8s Sc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXA2Lok9fu7Ce8C1jrZW1vUyPNwN6i4sx8oXbNIZEZDoeaD Zh6euiVK+q/Wdvm3nC4+4VmR8HqONIvMNJWEqqlveRVeTP+2oUWnM/5OzKq0bQXyscacCooT P7s/OLJb9bv6Gufa95d95i1ddjmv7+/Pm9Z3k65eXCS44kVOY89TI+O/W7RDry5vVmIpzkg0 1GIuKk4EADLv4fFmAgAA
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:46:40 -0000

Hi,

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?

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Martin Thomson [martin.thomson@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 06 September 2013 10:08 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

On 6 September 2013 12:06, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> But one of the main justifications for the 2nd O/A is the presence of
> intermediaries who depend upon this. Even if you know all about the
> application at the other end, you probably don't know about the presence of
> intermediaries that care any more than you know about intermediaries that
> force the use of ICE.

I think that you are underestimating Justin's case here.  There are no
intermediaries that you don't know about.  When you have the peering
arrangements of a large company like his employer and end-to-end
control over the application, chances are there aren't that many
intermediaries at even the IP layer you have to worry about.
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email