IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting with bundling

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.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 2104C1F0D08 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 GlfEWGNg5atU for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2461021F8CC7 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r6so1386575wey.19 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cegnbcldHNYJjFCDIfqnRWd0LtAH6WI90v0e0JQ4Bvg=; b=MzRsyvTGkxHnWSZQYJG4UYvBVoZd4P/Xaie4O7B/4UAZo+Cgc809d6aEGdwMrYyjBI BX315OmTE49XkdMo07nYy4mfoVjUIyCFkCj3HSibsRi8W7R6AuwjFghd0KBpKOQxTXlI ga/pkcn2GCi1c+dxCspcafBGLvty8EVdMK+bZhCNayeOE7Hv5RGYr8DHCSkNErBEy6rY A12XCiQ4hMv61YZ1oqgBb0ulA31H7oPzyEpnL3HYeGmp/weR+3AN+UT7hzj27Jgcinut hxdnscsGienHJIeiiDV7hMSlKFwccV55YEuOZaCnJ5gGP6nh9+LYCHDbqGNrjRVlZA0F l7uQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.170.165 with SMTP id an5mr36661012wjc.41.1363203504344; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.16.170 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201303120102.r2C12W0g240047@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <201303110237.r2B2btIS180463@shell01.TheWorld.com> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EB73DA@US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <201303112150.r2BLocqs234131@shell01.TheWorld.com> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EB74CA@US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <201303120102.r2C12W0g240047@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGQ-eJi4zdVLe5amdv-nGzUfabQvsArFH8nj75u7j97ycg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c6848a2168604d7d38c0b"
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Difficulties accepting and rejecting with bundling
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:38:30 -0000

I am just curios ... instead of playing with connection address and port
numbers for indicating accepting/rejecting a m=line in BUNDLE O/A, would
making a particular m=line direction inactive make things simpler ....
since for m=lines with direction as inactive would mean no ICE setup , no
reject port needed , no resource allocation on intermediary(?)

Any thoughts ?

./Suhas

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:

> > From: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
> >
> > This is the only compatibility concern identified with the
> > asymmetric use of the unspecified address, but this concern is
> > clearly misplaced for rtcweb applications where ICE and consent are
> > mandatory.
>
> I'm not limiting my attention to WebRTC only.  Even in situations
> where WebRTC is gatewayed to existing SIP infrastructure these
> problems appear.  If we restrict ourselves to WebRTC, then we have
> even more freedom, and in that case, I'd simply remove the rule
> regarding rejects MDs as members of groups.
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email