[MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Christer,

Here are some points I encountered while reviewing this version in prep 
for the meeting:

I trust that the requirement for identical c= values may be met by 
putting one c= at session level. Might be good to say that somewhere. It 
ought to be obvious, but some people make strange assumptions when 
things aren't explicit.

Open Issue #1: AFAIK grouping semantics requires the answer to include 
the same, or a subset, of the mids in the offer. So I think the only 
question here is whether it can be a subset. IMO the answer to that is 
YES, it can be a subset. Some may be dropped due to having been refused 
(port zero), and others just because there is a desire to have those 
particular ones unbundled.

Open Issue #2: I don't understand the issue. Why is this any different? 
Just follow the rules for establishing a new bundle.

Open Issue #3: Why not? Of course will need to supply a unique addr/port 
for each m-line, but that is nothing special. I also see no reason why 
you can't retain the bundle while assigning unique addr/port to each 
m-line, thus restarting the bundle negotiation. While I don't know why 
you might want to do that I see no reason to forbid it. (One reason to 
do that might be a 3pcc transfer.)

Section 6.3 should mention the possibility of accepting the bundle but 
omitting some of the m-lines from it.

	Thanks,
	Paul