Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Updating JSEP and BUNDLE

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:50 AM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ...
>
> >>>>> Secondly, I can definitely live with the work being done in a
> revivied
> >>>>> specifically charted RTCWeb WG. However, SDP Offer/Answer is used in
> several
> >>>> places for different usages. Something which was considred very much
> when
> >>>>> developing BUNDLE. Thus, I think it is relevant that RTCWeb will
> keep MMUSIC
> >>>>> informed about their work. So that RTCWeb doesn't end up missing an
> important
> >>>>> aspect of this, a run into issue when forming the IETF consensus
> needed to
> >>>>> publish this document.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the revised charter takes this into account.  Please let me
> know if it needs any other corrections.
> >>>
> >>> It needs to be clear that the charter is about fixing the misalignment
> between the BUNDLE and JSEP specifications - nothing more, nothing less.
> >>>
> >>> As noted in the spec blurb, we also need to consider the existing
> deployments and how any changes at this point may affect them. Specs that
> implementors can't implement are not useful.
> >>
> >> Absolutely. When we discuss how to solve the misalignment between the
> JSEP and BUNDLE specifications we need to take existing deployments into
> consideration.
> >>
> >> But, any issue that is not related to the misalignment between the JSEP
> and BUNDLE specifications shall be outside the scope.
> >
> > Agreed that we want to keep this narrowly focused. I believe the
> existing blurbs added to JSEP and BUNDLE outline the scope well, in that we
> are trying to solve a specific problem, but the solution space for said
> > problem may need to consider options beyond what JSEP and BUNDLE
> currently specify.
> >
> > On that topic: to understand the importance of the BUNDLE v41 change
> regarding answers and subsequent offers, does anyone recall the technical
> reasons behind this change?
>
> The change was suggested by Taylor:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/-jENmu4iaapy7NdJ9_SLHpNjSDc/
>
> Based on that text, there doesn't seem to be a technical reason, but
> rather just a wish to not duplicate unnecessary information (the port
> number).
>
> I know you have been trying to reach Taylor, so hopefully he can confirm
> whether there is a technical reason or not :)
>
> I haven't heard from him yet, but my read of that thread is that the
change is entirely focused on cleaner syntax.