Change:
1.3. <del> When RFC8829 was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE RFC9143 </del> <ins> When RFC8829 was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE RFC8843 </ins> operation were identified with regard to both the specification text as well as implementation behavior.  The former concern was addressed <del> via an update to RFC9143.  For the latter concern, it was observed that some implementations implemented the "max-bundle" bundle policy defined in RFC8829 by assuming that bundling had already been negotiated, rather than marking "m=" sections as bundle-only as indicated by the specification.  In order to prevent unexpected changes to applications relying on the pre-standard behavior, the decision was made to deprecate "max-bundle" and instead introduce an identically defined "must-bundle" policy that, when selected, provides the behavior originally specified by RFC8829. </del> <ins> via an update to BUNDLE (see RFC9143).  For the latter concern, it was observed that some implementations implemented the "max-bundle" bundle policy defined in RFC8829 by assuming that bundling had already been negotiated, rather than marking "m=" sections as bundle- only as indicated by the BUNDLE specification.  In order to prevent unexpected changes to applications relying on the pre-standard behavior, the decision was made to deprecate "max-bundle" and instead introduce an identically defined "must-bundle" policy that, when selected, provides the behavior originally specified by RFC8829. </ins> 2.

Discussion:
Addressing .
LGTM modulo the change below. NAME NAME Reviewer: Qin Wu Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. RFC8829 defines JSEP protocol and describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API. This document is RFC8829bis and provides update to RFC8829 to address inconsistency between JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol. Major issue: I am not against deprecating "max-bundle" and replacing it with “must-bundle”, but Since there is inconsistency between JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol, regarding bundle-only "m=", I think it is the fault of both JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol. the best way is both JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol should make bis documents in parallel, to make sure consistently issues get resolved. The draft said: “ The former concern was addressed via an update to [RFC9143] ” Where is the document specifying update to RFC9143? Without RFC9143bis to be proposed on the same table, I am not sure how we can prevent inconsistency issue between this RFC8829bis and the future RFC9143bis from happening again. Minor issue: The draft said: “ When [RFC8829] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE [RFC9143] operation were identified with regard to both the specification text as well as implementation behavior. ” What is the difference between specification text and implementation behavior? Why specification text can not specify the standard behavior for the endpoints implementation? RFC8829 said: “ JSEP prescribes that said "m=" sections should use port zero and add an "a=bundle-only" attribute in initial offers, but not in answers or subsequent offers. BUNDLE prescribes that these "m=" sections should be marked as described in the previous point, but in all offers and answers.

Most current browsers do not mark any "m=" sections with port zero and instead use the same port for all bundled "m=" sections; some others follow the JSEP behavior ” If both JSEP protocol and SDP BUNDEL protocol define consistent standard behavior, browser implementation follows standard behavior defined in JSEP and SDP BUNDEL protocol, implementation inconsistency will automatically go away, no?