Re: BUNDLE: meaning of "unspecified" when describing "bundle-only"

Hi,

It took a while, but here is my suggestion (based on alternative #2):

OLD TEXT:

"The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer.  Other
   usage is unspecified."


NEW TEXT:

"The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
   bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer.  Other
   usage is unspecified. If an implementation receives, within
an offer or answer, a bundled "m=“ line with a non-zero port value

and an ‘bundle-only’ attribute associated with the “m=“ line, the
implementation MUST ignore the attribute."

Regards,

Christer


On 10/01/17 15:18, "mmusic on behalf of Christer Holmberg"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
wrote:

>Hi Adam,
>
>My suggestion would be alternative #2. Because, if an endpoint supports
>the attribute it doesn¹t really matter what the port value is, so there is
>no need to reject the m- line.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>
>On 29/12/16 23:15, "mmusic on behalf of Adam Roach"
><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>We've recently come across an issue with the way the "bundle-only"
>>attribute is described in the current document. The current language
>>regarding port handling reads:
>>
>>    The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
>>    bundled "m=" line with a zero port value, within an offer. Other
>>    usage is unspecified.
>>
>>Usually, when we have this kind of language, we still ensure that
>>behavior is well defined, to help avoid unnecessary interop failures. I
>>see a couple of different options here:
>>
>> 1. Remove the final sentence and add language saying that creators of
>>    SDP MUST NOT include a "bundle-only" attribute in an m-section that
>>    has a non-zero port, and that recipients of such SDP {SHOULD,MUST}
>>    reject it; or
>>
>> 2. Retain language saying that including a "bundle-only" attribute in a
>>    non-zero m-section is unspecified, but add normative language along
>>    the lines of: "implementations that receive an m-section with a
>>    non-zero port that also contains a 'bundle-only' attribute MUST
>>    ignore the {attribute,port}."
>>
>>I don't have a preference between these choices, but I think we do need
>>clarity. To be absolutely clear, this feedback is based on actual
>>implementation interop failures in the field. This problem is not
>>theoretical.
>>
>>/a
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mmusic mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmusic mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic