Re: [MMUSIC] Closing on the SDPCapNeg modified m-line issue

Hi

I believe too that the draft should continue even though it may cause
e.g the modified m= line issue that we identified. The issues that we
identified will in the cases where they are applicable need to be solved
elsewhere to avoid problems that things may go wrong even at the first
answer. 

/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell@siemens.com] 
> Sent: den 18 juni 2008 09:04
> To: Jean-Francois Mule; Flemming Andreasen; Ingemar Johansson 
> S; Christer Holmberg
> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org; Joerg Ott
> Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Closing on the SDPCapNeg modified m-line issue
> 
> I think the draft should go ahead with the existing single 
> offer/answer exchange possibility.
> 
> John 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mule
> > Sent: 17 June 2008 17:03
> > To: Flemming Andreasen; Ingemar Johansson S; Christer Holmberg
> > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org; Joerg Ott
> > Subject: [MMUSIC] Closing on the SDPCapNeg modified m-line issue
> > 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-ne
> > gotiation-
> > 08
> > 
> > I have been watching the thread on the SDP capneg draft and the 
> > comments raised by Ingemar and Christer on the potential 
> problems that 
> > may be caused by SIP entities along the signaling path due to the 
> > modified m line in the SDP answer. As Flemming recapped, the SDP 
> > capability negotiation draft along with the media 
> capability draft's 
> > latent configurations provide a solution for those SDP agents that 
> > want to be cautious.
> > 
> > Given the above and the fact that this issue had been raised in the 
> > past and that at the time, there was consensus to allow capability 
> > negotiation in 1 offer/answer exchange with the above 
> potential issues 
> > taken into consideration, we chairs intend to go ahead and request 
> > publication as soon as draft-09 is out.
> > 
> > If there are any additional concerns on this draft, or if the above 
> > closure on the modified m-line issue is not good enough or does not 
> > reflect what you think is the wg consensus, please send comments to 
> > the list by Friday June 20.
> > 
> > Jean-Francois.
> > MMUSIC co-chair
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic