IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MMUSIC] Feedback requested on requirements

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 09 April 2013 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.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 B6CA521F9733 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 drB5wm4fN2wV for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A301621F972F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r39Fdk7i010379 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:39:50 -0400
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r39Fdkf52244693 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r39FdjqJ2253833; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:39:45 -0400
Message-Id: <201304091539.r39FdjqJ2253833@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] Feedback requested on requirements
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 15:40:11 -0000

   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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email