Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: Accept m- line, reject bundle

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 5/3/13 4:03 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> Assume the following case:
>>>
>>> 1.An SDP offer contains an m- line associated with a BUNDLE group
>>>
>>> 2.The answerer wants to accept the m- line, but wants to reject it being
>>> in the specific BUNDLE group.
>>>
>>> A few alternatives on how this could be achieved have been presented:
>>>
>>> Alt 1.      The answerer accepts the m- line, but does not associate it
>>> with a BUNDLE group.
>>>
>>> Alt 2.      The answerer accepts the m- line, associates it with a
>>> BUNDLE group, and then sends a new offer which removes the m- line from
>>> the BUNDLE group.
>>>
>>> Alt 3.      The answerer rejects the m- line, and then sends a new offer
>>> which adds the m- line outside a BUNDLE group.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, Alt 1 does not work, at least not if the offer contains
>>> identical port values for the m- lines associated with the BUNDLE group.
>>> It would mean that the m- line is not added to a BUNDLE group, but still
>>> has the same port value (at least at the offerer side) as the m- lines
>>> in the BUNDLE group, which is not allowed.
>>>
>>> So, my suggestion would be to specify that the answerer must use Alt 2
>>> and/or Alt 3.
>>
>> I don't think we should restrict flexibility here when it works and
>> makes sense.
>>
>> I agree that Alt 1 doesn't work *if* the m-line in question shares
>> addr/prot with other m-lines that are also accepted, bundled or not. But
>> the normal first offer won't present that situation. If the addr/port in
>> the m-line in question is unique among all the accepted m-lines, then
>> this should be acceptable.
>>
>> (Note, this is a degenerate case of bundle splitting. There are real use
>> cases for it. If it can be done without a 2nd o/a, then lets allow that.)
>
> I was thinking that, by not allowing it, we could have a general rule saying something like:
>
> "If an m- line in an offer is associated with a BUNDLE group, it MUST be associated with a BUNDLE group in the associated answer, unless the answerer sets the port value to zero."

Is the goal to minimize the number of words in the draft? :-)

I think this would be eliminating a scenario with practical utility.
And allowing it doesn't make the implementation significantly harder.
(The offerer must be prepared for the whole bundle to be rejected. This 
is a variant of that. For the m-lines that are removed from the bundle 
it is as if the bundle had been rejected. For the other m-lines it is as 
if the bundle had been accepted.

	Thanks,
	Paul