Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-49: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> ============================================================
> ===============
> Nits
> ============================================================
> ===============
>
> General:
>
> >>>> I agree with EKR that the use of "address:port" is cumbersome. For the
> >>>> places where this is not a stand-in for the term "'m=' section", I
> would
> >>>> suggest that the well-known term "3-tuple" would serve the purpose in
> a much more
> >>>> readable way.
> >>>
> >>> I personally have nothing against '3-tuple', Œtransport' (suggested by
> >>> Taylor at some point), etc.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that whenever I change the terminology someone later
> >>> wants something else, and then I again have to change it.
> >>
> >> Well, we're at IESG review now, so this is the last round.
> >>
> >> Who, specifically, is in favor of the current terminology?
> >
> > I see it more as terminology that people in the WG could live with.
> >
> > This doesn't answer my question. Who, specifically, thinks that this
> terminology
> > of focusing on the address:port and not the m= section is good?
>
> Considering that the focus has been on the address and port since day one,
> for 7 years, I think it is good.


Yes, who besides you? Because in the text above your argument is that if we
change it, then you will
have to change it again because someone else will object. That's different
from *you* disagreeing


After all, while there is more to it than the address:port, the main reason
> for BUNDLE is to be able to multiplex in a single address:port.
>

Perhaps, but not necessarily the one in the m= line, because of ICE.

-Ekr