Re: [rtcweb] BUNDLE with implicit rtcp-mux

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 13 March 2014 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65F01A0155 for <>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.24
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SilvHPaftFqz for <>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381F01A08F7 for <>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f4c8e0000012f5-de-5321607a71d5
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D3.52.04853.A7061235; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:38:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:38:34 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] BUNDLE with implicit rtcp-mux
Thread-Index: AQHPPCh4uGvaKjLTukeJMcClx2WsG5rZ+rmggABOAICAABMwcP//9NqAgAASK5D///t0AIAAX2mwgANKxACAAJwfoA==
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:38:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW51gmKwwcbpTBYrNhxgtVj7r53d gcnj7/sPTB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mq4v+IEU8FizortP9qZGhgXsHcxcnJICJhI rDu8mxHCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwAlGic13JrNCOEsYJZa3PGTpYuTgYBOwkOj+pw3SICLgK9F7 +RxYs7CAscSUzslsEHETibkTX7NA2FkS59YeAYuzCKhKLP5wkQnE5gXqnb37NtSyJ8wSa/bt AiviFNCRaL13mRnEZgS66PupNWANzALiEreezGeCuFRAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/WCFsRYmPr/Yx QtTrSCzY/YkNwtaWWLbwNTPEYkGJkzOfsExgFJ2FZOwsJC2zkLTMQtKygJFlFaNkcWpxcW66 kYFebnpuiV5qUWZycXF+nl5x6iZGYMQc3PLbaAfjyT32hxilOViUxHmvs9YECQmkJ5akZqem FqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamB0mMr8MbfnvX/Ko7mTeQofL8178+HHwjdsEqdfHs1pFHO501ej a8n1dcm8hoXrrjduYwuLrLG12majkOV+nGdCebjm9cnMrIGb1+x3Ysz9/7NFMaS+pPFkdUJN rdSGR1r2Il1LFzpZsfRfYek5/kI5xoHrdo3gYUOTU0b6LRXVk2f0feSaK6LEUpyRaKjFXFSc CABGBTU3ZgIAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] BUNDLE with implicit rtcp-mux
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:38:43 -0000


>>> 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.