[MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 02 September 2013 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37C321F8EA8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.347, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yyzV0dOn2dth for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 07:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658FB21F871B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9a8e000005620-5a-52249c830ee8
Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A4.AD.22048.38C94225; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:11:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC006.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:11:16 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?
Thread-Index: Ac6n5iNHyF7lWAnpRLasr2xApQPuVQ==
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:11:14 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C483C45@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C483C45ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7LHJUgg0WLuS2mLn/M4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujM4/u5gK5oRX/O2fzdzA+M67i5GTQ0LARGLP5X5GCFtM4sK9 9WxdjFwcQgKHGSUaPjSyQDiLGSU2TH3A2sXIwcEmYCHR/U8bpEFEQF3i694eZhBbWCBJYs+c cywQ8XSJhqmLmCBsPYl/F+8wgbSyCKhInOuIBQnzCvhKvJ26ih3EZgTa+/3UGrByZgFxiVtP 5jNB3CMgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rBC2okT70wZGiPp8iXnH3jJDzBSUODnzCcsERqFZSEbNQlI2 C0kZRFxHYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmWHsMwceMyGLL2BkX8XInpuYmZNebr6JERj0B7f8NtjBuOm+ 2CFGaQ4WJXHezXpnAoUE0hNLUrNTUwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwNlb/3Ja3o8f9F8eto0Uv /V1it5ywbNKZtODMIX+5RX8fCsUl1Ubt/HivYvkp3V+vWfuZHkxzutj84fD0T/eZDopc2Osn 8TIqaU8d35PSB7HKZ5YXXmFcuzKuvnXHqwcJezh/Tdd42KyxOfejCe+7AO7J09mut1XtT1ov KT5X59q5z/lqRz8dFFRiKc5INNRiLipOBAAZEweQSAIAAA==
Subject: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:11:30 -0000

Hi,

The text below applies to the INITIAL Offer only.

Currently, BUNDLE (-04) specifies that:


1)      In the initial Offer, the "1st Offer", the Offerer assigns a unique address to each m- line in a BUNDLE group.

2)      When the Answer is received, if the Answerer accepted BUNDLE, the Offerer MUST send a "2nd Offer" (called a BAS in the draft), in which the selected BUNDLE address is assigned to each m- line associated with a BUNDLE group.

This is based on the "merger" of the earlier BUNDLE version, and Cullen's CUNDLE suggestion, and currently there are NO exceptions defined to the rule above (we have agreed to relax this in mid-call Offers, but that's a separate topic).

Now, lately people have suggested exceptions to the rule.

E.g. the following has been suggested:


1)      The Offerer does NOT need to send the 2nd Offer (BAS), it the Offerer "knows" it is operating in an environment where there are no intermediaries etc that need to get the correct address for each m- line.

2)      The Offerer can already in the 1st Offer assign the same address to each m- line associated with a BUNDLE group, if it "knows" entities will be able to handle it.

Then, there are variants of the suggestions, where there are specific rules to bundle-only m- lines, where it depends on whether BUNDLE is used in the API or on the wire, etc etc etc.

At the moment it is impossible for me to parse the input, and try to come up with some new suggested text that would make everyone happy.

So, those of want to change the current rules, I would be really happy if you could explain exactly how you want to change it :)

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer