Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE TEXT: Offerer procedures (June 6th)

Hi Martin,

I see we had some of the same issues, but I think we have formed 
different ideas of how the proposal was intended to work and how to 
improve it.

My conclusion is that trying to characterize full offers into different 
types and impose rules on them breaks down, and that it is better to 
impose constraints that must apply.

I sketched out some proposed constraints in my reply. But if that 
approach seems acceptable then those need some refinement. For instance, 
in general the constraints don't apply to an entire offer or answer, but 
instead apply to a set of m-lines in a bundle group. (If there is more 
than one bundle group then each can be considered separately.) But some 
of the constraints are global - e.g. uniqueness.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 6/6/13 12:42 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Nice work.  I had too many comments to do an email reply properly, so
> I've done the whole nasty Word doc thing.
>
> The only big item is that I think that you need to more tightly
> control the conditions for a BSO - in most cases, you could label
> those BSO as BRO without causing any problems.  Given that limitation,
> you could probably eliminate the BRO/BSO labels, which might help with
> readability a little.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>