Re: [rtcweb] On transports and bundles

On 03/27/2015 12:38 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> If we factor out all of the W3C API conversations from what was said
> today, I think the only real point of contention turns on this
> statement; not because it's wrong, but because it's incomplete (and
> creates ambiguity as a result):
>
>    A receiving implementation MUST be able to receive media and data in
>    all these configurations.
>
> If we're going to make this statement, then we need to also say
> something about receiving bundle configurations that are more advanced
> than the two that we must be able to send.
>
> I would argue that anything short of saying that we MUST support any
> valid description as described by
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation would be creating a profile
> of bundle, and I believe that would be harmful. To that end, I think
> we either say that implementations MUST be able to handle any bundle
> configuration that is valid per the bundle draft, or we omit the
> statement I cite above and leave it to bundle to make statements
> around what it means to implement the protocol it defines.

"Support any valid configuration" can be read two ways:

A - The bundling proposal MUST result in the bundling the offerer suggested
B - The bundling proposal MUST result in a state that is legal by BUNDLE
rules

I think we're all in agreement that we want to mandate support in sense B.

When I wrote the text, I was intending sense A for the fully-bundled and
fully-unbundled cases.

I don't think this creates a profile of BUNDLE.
I think we agree on the state we want, it's just a matter of getting the
text to say that...

>
> I slightly prefer the latter approach.
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.