Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line for bundled session

Hi,

>What I understood is that the group (Cullen in particular) does not want the same port on multiple media 
>lines when it is not known whether the peer supports bundle.  Once you get agreement to use bundle I 
>don't see a problem, but maybe I missed something...  Does anyone have a different perspective?

Then one could claim that the initial offer should be sent without bundle (no matter how the mechanism works), and then enable bundle once you know that the other endpoint supports it.

Regards,

Christer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard); mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-line
> for bundled session
>
> Hi,
>
> >I also did not get the impression that there was agreement on the
> m=bundle approach since there were a number of open issues.
>
> Ok.
>
> >As Cullen suggested in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09561.html, just offer a normal SDP, add a
> bundle line, and
> >assume the use of the connection information from the first m line.  I
> agree with Cullen.
>
> This is what Harald origianlly suggested, and I raised issues with that
> solution.
>
> > I do not agree with the m=bundle approach for all the reasons Cullen
> mentions.  The only thing I would add is that some networks may
> > require an updated offer be sent listing the correct port (the same one)
> on each media line if bundle is negotiated.  ICE already requires
> > a 2nd offer in many cases, so I don't see this as a problem.
>
> I don't understand... The reason m=bundle came up was because people did
> NOT want to use the same port on each media line...
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Christer Holmberg
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:12 PM
> > To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-
> line
> > for bundled session
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >As an individual draft or WG draft?
> >
> > It was meant to be a new version of bundle...
> >
> > >because I am definitely don't think we have consensus for the
> "m=bundle"
> > approach yet. I just think the >m=bundle approach is going to be much
> > harder to get to work with existing equipment. Stuff is used to >seeing
> > a=foo lines they don't understand. They are not used to seeing m=foo
> lines
> > they don't understand. >It doubles the size of the SDP. It creates
> > confusing when rest of SDP in the non bundle part does not >match bundle
> > part. It's harder to add other things like opportunistic encryption. But
> > my real problem >with it is I don't see any advantage of the m=bundle
> > approach over the a=bundle  approach.
> >
> > What is the a=bundle approach? Offering "normal" (audio, video, etc) m-
> > lines, and then use one of them for the whole bundle?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Christer Holmberg
> > <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've put together a new version of BUNDLE, with a dedicated m- line
> for
> > the bundled media.
> > >
> > > It will be submitted very soon, once I get some editorial fixes done.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Christer
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [fluffy@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:43 PM
> > > To: Harald Alvestrand
> > > Cc: Christer Holmberg; mmusic@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Possible BUNDLE alternative syntax: explicit m-
> > line for bundled session
> > >
> > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>> So, IF people think that offering the same port will cause problem,
> > >
> > > For me this is not longer an IF, for equipment I am concerned about it
> > has become a does as I explain at last meeting.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mmusic mailing list
> > > mmusic@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic