Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives-00.txt

Hi Richard,

It would have been good with some example messages/flows, but I'll give my comments based on my understanding of the text. Also, I'll focus on the "Unspecified address for subsequent m lines in SDP answer" alternative, as it is the one you recommend, but I believe my comments also apply to some of the other alternatives.

In general, you only focus on one single issue, but leave a number of questions unanswered.

First, as you will now have a single non-zero m- line, you still assume that entities (including intermediaries) will take information (media types, payload type mappings etc etc etc - even protocol, if we decide to also allow the data channel in the bundle) from all m- lines. Or, do you intend to put all that information into a single m- line? If so, in my opinion MMT is a much better approach.

Second, what if a user wants the disable, or reject, a specific stream, using port zero? How is it done in case the stream is already represented by a zero m- line? How is it done in case the stream is represented by the non-zero m- line which contains the port number value used for the whole bundle?

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
Sent: 19. helmikuuta 2013 0:09
To: mmusic@ietf.org; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives-00.txt

Please note that I have also submitted a draft on how to fix BUNDLE.  This doc is based on the modified BUNDLE proposal with different port information for each m line and compares several different additional modifications to BUNDLE.  The doc ends up recommending the use of the unspecified address for subsequent m lines in a bundle group in the SDP answer (not offer).  Please see the doc for details.

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Richard Ejzak and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Alternatives to BUNDLE
Creation date:	 2013-02-18
Group:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 7
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives-00.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ejzak-mmusic-bundle-alternatives-00

Abstract:
   This paper discusses some potential modifications to the BUNDLE
   proposal for multiplexing of multiple media types within a single
   5-tuple to address limitations of the current proposal and
   alternatives already considered by MMUSIC.

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic