Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle offer with different ports - where to expect media?

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hey Paul,
>
> On 21.05.13, 20:57, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > On 5/21/13 4:45 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> >> Hey Paul,
> >>
> >> On 20.05.13, 18:09, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> >>> On 5/20/13 10:51 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> >>>> Hey Christer,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20.05.13, 17:16, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What happens when the offerer knows the answerer has bundle
> >>>>>>>> support, sends all m-lines with the same port, then the
> >>>>>>>> answerer splits the first line away from the bundle? Would the
> >>>>>>>> answerer still send everything to the same port?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We discussed this week,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, sorry, I didn't follow this closely.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and the outcome (at least my read of it :) was that the answerer
> >>>>>>> is not allowed to split any m- lines away from the bundle in this
> >>>>>>> case. Instead the answerer will have to send a new offer for the
> >>>>>>> split, allowing new ports to be negotiated at both ends.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK, so shouldn't the same thing happen in the case with different
> >>>>>> ports?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suggested that it should never be allowed to split an m- line from
> >>>>> a bundle group in an answer, but others had other opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see how we could allow it in one case and disallow it in the
> >>>> other. The only difference between the two cases is how informed the
> >>>> offerer is about the answerers bundle support capabilities and I don't
> >>>> really understand why this would influence the decision to allow
> >>>> splitting bundles one way or the other.
> >>>
> >>> It is a different case because the same port *can't* both be used as
> the
> >>> bundle port and a port for an unbundled m-line.
> >>
> >> Why not? Obviously the offerer was prepared to demultiplex traffic
> >> there. Why wouldn't it be able to continue doing so even if the answerer
> >> would prefer to receive it separately?
> >
> > The point of wanting the one line unbundled is so that it can be
> > *received* on a different address/port. Perhaps there is a separate
> > device or process that will be supporting that one, that must be reached
> > at its own addr/port.
>
> Yes, sure. My point was that the party that unbundled the one m= line
> can receive it separately. The party that sent the offer can keep
> getting it on the same port.
>
> > Unless you expect that this would have a common addr/port on the
> > offering side and different addr/ports on the answering side. But we
> > investigated that approach early in the bundle discussions, and gave it
> up.
>
> No I don't and I suspect you misunderstood me.
>
> Also in all my comments I kept noting that we shouldn't be allowing the
> answer to unbundle a single m= line. In your response to Cullen you
> seemed to agree with this so I guess we are in agreement.
>
> >> Note that I am not defending such an approach. I'd much prefer that
> >> splitting is only allowed when re-offering.
> >>
> >>>>> HOWEVER, it would still not help in the case where the 1st m- line is
> >>>>> rejected.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, how about looking at it this way: the offerer specifies a bundle
> >>>> port in the first m=line. This also happens to be the port for the
> first
> >>>> media line but the two are different things and just happen to have
> the
> >>>> same value for reasons related to syntax and convenience.
> >>>>
> >>>> A bundle supporting answerer should understand this. After receiving
> the
> >>>> offer that answerer has learned the bundle port number. Rejecting the
> >>>> first m=line in the answer does not change this.
> >>>
> >>> There are many reasons that an answerer may reject an m-line.
> >>> It is *possible* that it is rejecting it because it has a problem with
> >>> the address (c=) for the m-line in the offer. If so, then if you insist
> >>> on using it as the bundle address, even if the m-line is refused, then
> >>> there is no way for the answerer to refuse it.
> >>>
> >>> (*Why* it would have a problem is an open question. Maybe its IPv6 and
> >>> the answerer can't use it, or maybe its an FQDN and it can't be
> >>> resolved. I realize this is unlikely. But making the assumption that
> the
> >>> address must be acceptable to the answerer is IMO not a good idea.)
> >>
> >> Aha! That's a good point.
> >>
> >> Still, the thing that I don't quite understand is: if the answerer has a
> >> problem with the c= line, how could that problem only apply to the first
> >> m= line and not to the entire bundle?
> >
> > Presumably this would only happen if the c= for were not all the same in
> > the offer. Certainly that is possible. When allocating "ports" for each
> > m-line one might also end up with different addresses.
>
> This makes me wonder: should we even allow for different c= addresses
> within a bundle? The reason to use different ports was a compromise, not
> a choice based on the necessity to give that option to applications.
> While falling back to different port numbers is defendable, I don't see
> how we would justify the possibility to fallback to different c= lines.
>
> > Consistency is good. But isn't it just as consistent to say that the
> > first *accepted* m-line defines the bundle addr/port as it is to say
> > that the first offered m-line?
>
> The bundle suggestion started out by saying that all ports would be the
> same. We then moved to a version where we would use different ports, in
> order to prevent some non-bundle endpoints from fainting at the sight of
> port reuse. We still agreed that the first one is the bundle port and
> the others are there just for fall back. So far so good.
>
> Now we are discussing the possibility of saying: your bundle port will
> be the first one you offer, unless the answerer rejects that m= line, in
> which case it could be the port of the second m= line, or the third one ...
>
> I agree it wouldn't be the end of the world, but to me this doesn't
> sound particularly consistent.
>

Perhaps not the most elegant thing in the world, but it doesn't seem
inconsistent to me. I think this is the most practical choice.