Subject: [clue] FW: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:52:38 +0000

FYI,

Christer
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Christer Holmberg [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 9:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MMUSIC] Draft new version:    draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03

Hi,

I've submitted a new version (-03) of BUNDLE.

Based on discussions with Cullen, and exchange of the concerns we had with the different port alternatives (different-ports vs identical-port), this version now describes a mechanism where both alternatives more or less are combined. When the first BUNDLE offer is sent, and it is now known whether the answerer supports BUNDLE (or, even identical ports), different ports are used (read: the one-rtp alterntaive). Once BUNDLE answer has been received, a new offer, with identical port numbers, is sent.

We think that having to send a second offer is not going to increase complexity and delay, because in many use-cases subsequent offer(s) will be sent anyway. For example, RTCWEB entities will do it because of ICE.

Cullen has also been added as co-author.

Now, we do realize that there are still issues that have to be described, and hopefully we will be able to focus on those from now on, but our wish is that this proposal will unite the different "port camps" :)

Regards,

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