Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Draft MMUSIC Minutes

From: "Orit Levin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:49:51 -0800

You are right.  I reread the RFC 3388 and it explicitly disallows this
case.
Sorry for the confusion,

Orit. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:02 AM
To: Orit Levin
Cc: Flemming Andreasen; Joerg Ott; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft MMUSIC Minutes

Orit,

> 1. It is really sad that none of us have time (including myself) to 
> specify this behavior in the upcoming standard.

The idea is not to add new functionality to SDPnew. The idea is to
clarify existing functionality and fix known bugs. Multiples m lines
with the same transport address (IP address plus port) were never
allowed, and that is what SDPnew is going to clarify.

> 2. Just "disallowing" it will not help! Implementers that are not 
> interested in the "mid" benefits will not read through all the 
> possible cases of the "mid" use and find out that it is actually "is 
> allowed" and can happen more often as the industry moves forward!!!
> 
> The basic SDP needs to specify how you act upon receiving this case.

You will never receive an SDP with multiple m lines with the same
transport address. Existing implementations don't do it, and future
implementations will not do it either.

Regarding the grouping framework, it does not allow multiple m lines
with the same transport address either. So, implementors do not need to
read thru those specs either. This issue has nothing to do with the
grouping framework.

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic