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

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> 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.

Dale