RE: [MMUSIC] RE: alternate RTP profiles in SDP offer/answer

["Francois Audet" <audet@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Also, in section 1.1, the description of (SDP) media 
> description could 
> > be clarified with something like:
> > 
> >    (SDP) media description:
> >         This term refers to the specification given in a single m=
> >         line in an SDP message.  An SDP media description may define
> >         only one RTP session.  Grouping of m= lines in SDP 
> (each with 
> >                                                            
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >         their own distinct transport address as described 
> in [9]) may 
> > cause
> >         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >         several SDP session level descriptions to define 
> (alternatives
> >         of) the same RTP session for the same media type.
> >  
> > Or something along those lines.
> 
> Adding this sentence would kill one interesting use case: For 
> example, AVP and AVPF can work in the same session in a mixed 
> operation (while AVO anf SAVP cannot).  For mixed operation 
> to be possible, however, these tools MUST use the same 
> transport addresses.

So you are speaking in favor of port overloading?

Am I misunderstanding you?

What I am worried about is RFCs allowing port overloading, and others
saying it's illegal.

> Therefore, the above description needs to be a bit more 
> explicit about what it allows in order not to defeat 
> perfectly legitimate use cases.
> 
> But you brought up an important point for which I need to 
> scan the draft spec in depth.  I will collect further items 
> from the other mails and reply one by one (but this may take 
> a day or two) and then hopefully get a revised spec within 
> two weeks or so that reflects these clarifications.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joerg
> 
> 
>