Re: [rtcweb] BUNDLE with implicit rtcp-mux

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>> 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.)

I think it is enough if we limit it to protocols for which the rtcp-mux attribute has been defined. I don't think it's up to BUNDLE to generally define for which type of m- lines rtcp-mux can be used, only the (if any) BUNDLE specific aspects.

Regards,

Christer