Subject: [MMUSIC] bundle-13

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:20:56 -0500

In general the use of the new terminology (identification-tag) is an 
improvement. I have the following comments:

Section 5.1 says:

    A single address:port combination is also used for sending bundled
    media.  The address:port combination used for sending bundled media
    MAY be the same as the BUNDLE address, used to receive bundled media,
    depending on whether symmetric RTP is used.  A given address:port
    combination MUST NOT be used for sending media associated with
    multiple BUNDLE groups.

If symmetric RTP is *not* used, what is the value of requiring that a 
single address:port be used for sending? The receiver, and 
intermediaries, won't know what that address is until the media starts 
flowing.

Also, why would it be forbidden to use the same address to send to 
multiple bundle groups?

The restriction makes sense with ICE, but in that case it is ICE 
providing the restriction. In the absence of ICE these restrictions seem 
arbitrary and without motivation.

(Note that this limitation is also mentioned in section 10.3.1.)

Section 7.2:

I presume that the "c=" line associated with a bundled "m=" line could 
either be a media-level c-line following the m-line, or a session-level 
c-line preceding the first m-line. Is that right?

Perhaps that should be stated.

Section 8.5.2:

I want to check what is intended here.

Suppose I have previously established a bundle group. It has several 
m-lines. In the prior O/A all of those m-lines had the same 
address:port. Now I want to change the bundle address.

As I read the text in this section, I must change the address in *1* of 
the m-lines, and suggest it as the offerer bundle address, but leave the 
old address in the other m-lines.

That isn't what I had been thinking happened. I had been assuming that 
the address would be changed in all the m-lines.

The consequence of this is that if the answerer doesn't want the change, 
it will have to reject the one changed m-line, and select the old 
address as the bundle address. If I was making the change because I am 
no longer capable of using the old address then this won't work for me. 
It would be better for me to have the entire bundle rejected.

Section 11.2.1 says:

    When an offerer assigns a unique address to a bundled "m=" line
    (excluding and bundle-only "m=" line), it MUST also associate unique
    ICE candidates [RFC5245] to the "m=" line.

The parenthetical remark doesn't make sense to me. Did you perhaps mean: 
"(excluding any bundle-only "m=" lines)"?

	Thanks,
	Paul