Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-49: (with COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

===========================================================================
Nits
===========================================================================

General:

>>>> I agree with EKR that the use of "address:port" is cumbersome. For the
>>>> places where this is not a stand-in for the term "'m=' section", I would
>>>> suggest that the well-known term "3-tuple" would serve the purpose in a much more
>>>> readable way.
>>>
>>> I personally have nothing against '3-tuple', Œtransport' (suggested by
>>> Taylor at some point), etc.
>>>
>>> The problem is that whenever I change the terminology someone later
>>> wants something else, and then I again have to change it.
>>
>> Well, we're at IESG review now, so this is the last round.
>>
>> Who, specifically, is in favor of the current terminology?
>
> I see it more as terminology that people in the WG could live with.
>
> This doesn't answer my question. Who, specifically, thinks that this terminology
> of focusing on the address:port and not the m= section is good?

Considering that the focus has been on the address and port since day one, for 7 years, I think it is good. After all, while there is more to it than the address:port, the main reason for BUNDLE is to be able to multiplex in a single address:port.

Now, we HAVE discussed changing "address:port" to "transport", but it would still not be about the m= section.

>> Having said that, if we can change it with a search/replace operation I am
>> happy to discuss it. I THINK we could do that e.g., with "transport" or
>> "3-tuple". 
>>
>> But I don¹t want to make yet another re-write of the document just to once
>> again change the terminology.
>
> This document is going to be used by a lot of people. It's important that it be
> clear.

I fully agree. But, I am not sure that endless re-writings the document is going to achieve that.

Regards,

Christer