Re: Existing missmatch between SDP mux and BUNDLE

On 9/26/17 2:16 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

+1

	Thanks,
	Paul

> 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
> 

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