Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun - bundle-only attribute

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 9 May 2013 08:12, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> From: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
>>
>> On 8 May 2013 12:37, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > This is a promising proposal, but I think a lot more care needs to be
>> > taken in defining how port numbers are to be used in this technique.
>> > I can't tell what particular uses of port numbers are allowed and what
>> > ones are not allowed.  And it seems that the intended patterns could
>> > result in problematic behaviors from intermediate devices.
>>
>> Thankfully, that's a problem that bundle is going to solve, not this
>> document.  The only statements that this draft needs to make is with
>> respect to zero vs. non-zero port numbers, and only in the context of
>> a=bundle-only.
>
> OK, I hadn't grasped the degree to which draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a is
> intended to be just an amendment to
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation.  But it still does introduce
> new patterns of use of port numbers in m= lines (e.g., an answer can
> have a non-zero port number for an m= line which had a zero port
> number in the offer), so we can't just wave our hands and say
> "draft-bundle-negotiation will solve that" -- it's a substantial
> change to what bundle-negotiation is proposing and solving the
> problems that are apparent in bundle-negotiation won't solve all the
> problems that result if draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a is added to it.

Right.  I didn't intend to trivialize this, but I'd prefer to try to
keep the issues as separate as possible.  That probably means that we
solve bundle first.