Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override? (UNCLASSIFIED)

"Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil> Thu, 21 March 2013 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D63921F8D68; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id geeZEhyAaCLo; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFA621F8D14; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3O.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.154) by ucolhp3l.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:15:10 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP9B.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.10.116]) by UCOLHP3O.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.154]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:15:10 +0000
From: "Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override? (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thread-Index: Ac4kHg5Y6RAUfNpKQfaYxrqiVMYCTQAjG6gAAAGCK8AADz+6gAAJ0yXgAAE+TwAANTO+sAAPluaAAAAoBlA=
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:15:10 +0000
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF49A66ECD@ucolhp9b.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6942C3@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <514829CE.4010004@alvestrand.no> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F694591@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <51489A43.3030109@jitsi.org> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F69476F@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <5148E48A.4060202@alvestrand.no> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F695203@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <514AF881.4040209@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <514AF881.4040209@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.62.4]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01CE260C.300637E0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override? (UNCLASSIFIED)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:15:29 -0000

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

So, it is ugly vs. uglier vs. ugliest ...

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:10 AM
To: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override?

On 03/21/2013 06:59 AM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> You're right, both are essentially groupings, and all of our wheels have
ugly angles. To me, the ugly angles in bundle are unnecessary indirection by
grouping with artificial bindings (mid), and that it pretends to be more
than it is. To me, it is just a port override, but with unnecessary
indirection. Why not just say the port you want to use directly?
>
> m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0
> m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 31
> a=port 10000
>
> vs.
>
> a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
> m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0
> a=mid:foo
> m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 31
> a=mid:bar
>
> Why is the direct approach more complex? Why is ICE any different in
either approach?
You don't know the port you'll be using ahead of time with ICE; you have 
to put ICE into all the M-lines in order to be able to negotiate ICE 
when you don't get the bundling.

So in addition to specifying the port on the m= line, you have to uglify 
your solution by stating rules that say "if you accept this alternate 
port, you also have to accept these special rules for ICE", and all the 
other stuff that Christer uncovered and is documented in his draft.

And nothing that looks as the SDP without knowing the special semantics 
of bundle can know that the fact that a=port in those 2 M-lines implies 
special treatment of ICE.

It's a grouping framework. I don't want to create new grouping 
frameworks; the one we have is bad enough.

I think your angles will produce a bumpier ride than mine :-)

>
> Cheers,
> Mo
>

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE