IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 23 September 2013 10:47 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 D9D0E21F9D52 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.593, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 5VtUYt0AdXAk for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5995421F9CA6 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-d5-52401c2f3a8d
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F3.2E.16099.F2C10425; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:47:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.24]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:47:11 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?
Thread-Index: AQHOmHzQ4AP154JSMUmzSenKQDde2pmXcW3AgDvriHA=
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:47:10 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A9D5A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C421C80@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113678F94@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C44E532@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C44E532@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra6+jEOQwdI1FhZTlz9mcWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxsVpy9kLpnBVTHpwi6WBsZWji5GTQ0LARGLDp2vMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQOM0pcWLKVEcJZwiixdcZKpi5GDg42AQuJ7n/aIA0iAjISezdtBmsWFgiTmLdl LjNEPFzi8IdtTBC2lcSvt8dYQGwWAVWJyb9+gMV5BXwl/ty5zQwx/wqjxP6Vb1hBEpwCfhKv ls5iB7EZgS76fmoNWAOzgLjErSfzmSAuFZBYsuc81NWiEi8f/2OFsBUldp5tZ4ao15FYsPsT G4StLbFs4WtmiMWCEidnPmGZwCg6C8nYWUhaZiFpmYWkZQEjyypG9tzEzJz0csNNjMDAP7jl t+4OxlPnRA4xSnOwKInzbtI7EygkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qB0Yjn+ZUFt1NX xle0G97SKuxb6+QxJUsg1dxw/WzjF7s/RzZfrfdT6fjF5tTBo/sueU5K+43Pm8+G8WUev3St ++Ss/2rfX6rm1wU8dOi5dHGF7691HP/NXWqnit42OP2rMDZj59NgrvpM5w/1h/+Z93PEtWbt Wbv5y+s7SyqMfc/d2rrVMXDNXCWW4oxEQy3mouJEAMkR3YhKAgAA
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE goes UP: Do we need port zero for bundle-only m- lines?
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, 23 Sep 2013 10:47:31 -0000

Hi,

There has been no conclusion in the discussion regarding the usage of port zero in 'bundle-only' m- lines, so I'll try to bring it up to surface again. As the SDP 'bundle-only' attribute is currently suggested to be defined in BUNDLE, I'd like to solve the issue.

The proposal by Adam in Berlin was that, for 'bundle-only' m- lines, in an Offer, the Offerer would assign a zero port value to the m- lines. If the Answerer supports BUNDLE, it will assign the shared (non-zero) BUNDLE address to the m- lines. If the Answerer does NOT support BUNDLE, it is expected to reject the m- lines by assigning a port zero value also in the Answer (according the RFC 3264 procedures).

- Some raised comments that RFC 3264 mandates an offered port zero m- line to be answered with a port zero m- line, and that support of BUNDLE doesn't change that.

- Some suggested that the 'bundle-only' m- lines aren't added until the "clean-up" Offer is sent, when all bundled m- lines (including the 'bundle-only' ones) are assigned the shared BUNDLE address.

- And, of course we have the general suggestion that one should be able to assign a shared address to bundled m- lines from start, in which case there is no need for port zero.

Regards,

Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email