search

cdh4u / draft-sdp-bundle

1 stars 9 forks source link

Restrictions for offering unique addresses in a subsequent offer seem unnecessary. #25

Closed taylor-b closed 6 years ago

taylor-b commented 7 years ago

I'm referring to this list of conditions:

When an offerer generates a subsequent offer, it MUST associate the previously selected offerer BUNDLE address [Section 8.3.1] with each bundled "m=" line (including any bundle-only "m=" line), except if:

o The offerer suggests a new offerer BUNDLE address [Section 8.5.1]; or

o The offerer wants to add a bundled "m=" line to the BUNDLE group [Section 8.5.2]; or

o The offerer wants to move a bundled "m=" line out of the BUNDLE group [Section 8.5.3]; or

o The offerer wants to disable the bundled "m=" line [Section 8.5.4].

My interpretation is: If A, B and C are already bundled, then a subsequent offer MUST use a shared address for them. But if D is added, then A, B, C, and D can use unique addresses.

I don't see what value this restriction provides. Also, an endpoint could just add a dummy "m=" section to get around this restriction. So I'd recommend removing it.

cdh4u commented 7 years ago

Some clarification might be needed, but the bullets apply to individual m- lines.

So, it is perfectly ok to add D, and use A,B and C with a unique address.

(Of course, this issue is dependent on your other issue, whether unique addresses should be dropped completely.)

cdh4u commented 6 years ago

Now, in a subsequent offer, the BUNDLE address is only assigned to the m= section represented by the BUNDLE-tag.