Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override?

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 03/19/2013 07:43 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> Hi Emil,
>
> Those drafts use the SDP grouping framework (a=group:BUNDLE/TOGETHER), which I think is unnecessary complexity and ambiguity for something which can be solved in a much simpler and clearer way with a single attribute: a=port <port>. (Or, if we want to warn humans about RTP muxing, then name it a=rtp-mux:<port>, but machines won't care about the name, and their RTP implementations already know how to deal with muxing if they use this attribute, so stronger warnings are unnecessary.)

To me, what you're describing is a grouping (the ports with the same 
a=rtp-mux:port attribute form a single RTP session), so it seems to me 
that using the grouping framework and using matching a=rtp-mux:port 
attribute have exactly the same level of complexity - but in the case of 
a=rtp-mux:port, you lose the ability to use ICE attributes to negotiate 
the actual ports, addresses and network interfaces actually used - so 
the a=rtp-mux:port mechanism will actually turn out to be *more* complex 
than the grouping framework once you've added all the other features you 
need to take advantage of ICE and so on.

So - after I've thought about it for a while - I think calling it a 
"port override" is not just misleading, the implementation you're 
suggesting will be more complex than using the grouping framework.

Why invent square wheels when the pentagonal ones are doing just fine?