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

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 07 June 2013 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664DA21F918F for <>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vb06fFT3WYmY for <>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02E321F90CC for <>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id cb5so1392674wib.9 for <>; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=U9CbtvKVfcBuAwk9M30bac8CMyiEMKx2R8CSAEreQw0=; b=iAy0i/PmeqF26ebhjs+swIOMK+ziXQsEsmuNSd0RbaSp0pKM4f3aKbIHwQeux+7svE fNkSexW8dq8nalezxjPlJ+8M03a1k/sfpKohCQ7WQBaFD63WmBgOWYaXKpPm30UcafmS Da4JhH1hl+cwV1WrN3cPH0KoVPeYY0+dGw+h8gRYjQ7RbVGR1DGV4GfDhH4sT6fdfqIP wr4ZQQoYsliCcCJF4yiY+j2Jt12S0jdjCFoMmPsUXMIDrUPUVyTCp8OXaz6zBbuM+5t7 ll2gQX8la9OSSXU6dY/Vh2eQwujzt1/B9wPvXjRUOaG78LrsJXv2xTgtKpjQP+qwUeNw JUcg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id mw15mr2304093wic.10.1370621559793; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:12:39 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "" <>, Paul Kyzivat <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE TEXT: Offerer procedures (June 6th)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:12:41 -0000

Great stuff Christer.  I think that we have reached some sort of agreement.

Only one thing to comment on:

On 7 June 2013 05:19, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
>> The MUST above bothers me. I could go with SHOULD.
>> IOW, even if the offerer doesn't know whether the answerer supports
>> bundle, it could take a chance, on the assumption that the odds are good
>> that it will be successful. Then it can deal with the consequences if
>> the answer indicates that bundle wasn't supported.
> Ok.

So I don't have a problem with going with SHOULD here rather than
MUST.  If the Offerer wants to take that chance, then that is OK with
me.  It might still work even if the Answerer didn't support BUNDLE.
The only thing that would make me reluctant to do so is that you then
need to follow the SHOULD with some additional information.  Guidance
on what could go wrong if the SHOULD is ignored.

Were it me, I'd want to dredge through the archives to uncover all
those nasty corner cases we discussed in order to get the right text,
so my natural laziness would lead to choosing MUST :)