Re: Existing missmatch between SDP mux and BUNDLE

On 9/26/17 1:49 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Christer Holmberg 
>> <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> >I have one question, which actually makes a practical difference to 
>> the on-the->wire SDP of BUNDLE.
>> >
>> >For a session- and media-level attribute which has the common pattern 
>> that the>session-level value provides a default for the media level, 
>> a non-overridden>session-level attribute is arguably “associated” 
>> with a media description, but it>clearly isn’t “included” in it.
>> >
>> >Should this be permitted?
>> Not sure I understand. Should what be permitted? :)
>
> If BUNDLE says that an attribute of this type “MUST be associated with 
> a media description”, is it sufficient to have the attribute specified 
> at the session level?
>
Yes - this is how SDP normally works and we shouldn't change that.

Thanks

-- Flemming (as individual)

>> Regards,
>> Christer
>>
>>     On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:52 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>     I am in favor of the changes that Taylor proposes.
>>     -Ekr
>>     On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Flemming Andreasen
>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>         I much prefer use of the term "media description" as well
>>         since this is well-defined in 4566.
>>
>>         Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree with Christer's
>>         point about terminology change - we need people to agree to
>>         this before entertaining yet another update on this front.
>>
>>         So folks, please speak up and let us know if you are for,
>>         against, or indifferent in terms of said terminology change.
>>
>>         Thanks
>>
>>         -- Flemming
>>         On 9/22/17 4:08 PM, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
>>
>>             Right. I can only think of one possible interpretation of
>>             "add attribute to media description". RFC4566 uses the
>>             following phrases:
>>
>>               * "attributes ... may be added"
>>               * "attribute ... in the media description"
>>               * "attribute is present"
>>               * "a media description may have any number of attributes"
>>               * "attribute fields can ... be added"
>>               * "specifying the attribute"
>>               * "session description containing such attributes"
>>               * "attribute MUST be included"
>>
>>             So, the following would be consistent with the defined
>>             terminology:
>>
>>               * "The offerer MUST add the foo attribute to the media
>>                 description."
>>               * "The foo attribute MUST be
>>                 [present|contained|specified|included] in the media
>>                 description."
>>               * "The media description MUST have the foo attribute."
>>
>>             But "foo attribute MUST be associated with the m-line"?
>>             Not so much.
>>             On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Christer Holmberg
>>             <[email protected]
>>             <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>                 Hi,
>>
>>                 >> It depends on how we interpret "associated with"
>>                 >
>>                 > That's why I purged "associated with" from the
>>                 BUNDLE
>>                 spec:https://github.com/taylor-b/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/1
>>                 >
>>                 > It almost always can be interpreted in multiple
>>                 ways. Unfortunately this never got integrated, I
>>                 assume because I was too late.
>>
>>                 No, you were not :) I have been looking at your CR,
>>                 and have been considering to integrate it, but I
>>                 lately I have been so busy with draft-dtls-sdp etc.
>>
>>                 Having said that, we have changed the terminology in
>>                 bundle a number of times already - we really need to
>>                 stop at some point.
>>
>>                 The history of "associated" is when people commented
>>                 that one cannot add an attribute, address etc to an
>>                 m- line (because attributes, c- lines and m- lines
>>                 are separate SDP properties). So, instead of talking
>>                 about adding those to an m- line talk about
>>                 associating those with an m- line.
>>
>>                 Now, if I remember the changes in your PR correctly,
>>                 you are talking about "media descriptions", which
>>                 would be an "envelope" containing the m- line, the
>>                 address and attributes associated with that m- line.
>>                 Then you could say "add attribute to the media
>>                 description", etc. Right?
>>
>>                 Regards,
>>
>>                 Christer
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         mmusic mailing list
>>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     mmusic mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>

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