Re: [rtcweb] BUNDLE with implicit rtcp-mux

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 3/10/14 4:09 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>> I also thought the a=rtcp-mux is a MUST to implement, not a MUST use.
>
> Currently the draft says MUST use. But, that may be a mistake, or a leftover from previous procedures. I agree that one should be able to use BUNDLE also without rtcp-mux (i.e. using separate BUNDLE ports for the RTP traffic and the RTCP traffic).

Now that I look carefully, I think you have been a little over zealous 
about this.

Remember, at least in principle, there can be non-RTP m-lines in the 
bundle. You don't want to require using rtcp-mux with those. (And, at 
least in principle, bundle can be used even when there are *no* RTP 
m-lines.)

So I think the draft must at least limit these requirements to RTP 
m-lines. (But finding a clean way to do that may be tricky, since there 
is a potentially open ended set of <proto> values that relate to RTP.)

	Thanks,
	Paul