Re: [AVTCORE] Call for consensus on multiplexing multipe media streams.

OK, so that's how I had also interpreted the original consensus-call email options.
Thank you for the clarification.

-hadriel

On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Roni Even wrote:

> Hi Hadriel,
> There is background information about the different multiplexing in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture-0
> 0 
> I would like to say that this is an individual draft does not reflect
> consensus of the WG. Sections 3 till 6 provide the overview that may be
> helpful for you.
> 
> As a WG chair I cannot comment on  sections 7-9 but they are relevant but
> caused discussion.
> 
> The different proposals are in
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing-0
> 1 for option 2
> 
> and 
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lennox-rtcweb-rtp-media-type-mux-00.txt for
> option 3
> 
> 
> All the documents were discussed in the AVTcore session.
> 
> 
> Roni Even
> AVT co-chair
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Hadriel Kaplan
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:44 AM
>> To: avt@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Call for consensus on multiplexing multipe media
>> streams.
>> 
>> 
>> If what Matthew says is true, that 2 and 3 are on-the-wire equivalent,
>> then I'm totally confused by the choices now.
>> 
>> Can the chairs please clarifies what the consensus call options mean?
>> 
>> In particular, can you do so by indicating actual drafts, rather than
>> using high-level terminology?
>> 
>> -hadriel
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/16/11 10:47 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
>>>>> So the WG chairs are asking which direction to take
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The options we have are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Go forward with both solutions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Only define multiplexing of multiple RTP sessions in a single
>> transport flow.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. Only define multiplexing of multiple media types in a single RTP
>> session.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Not enough information in order to decide, more discussion is
>> needed.
>>>> My preference is (2) but I am also fine with (1) if that is the
>> consensus.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> (Sorry about tagging on to this point in the thread, but I joined the
>>> list late)
>>> 
>>> I'm fine with either 2 or 3, but only because I think that 2 and 3
>> can look exactly the same on the wire and only differ in the
>> semantics... and I don't really care which semantics we choose.
>>> 
>>> I'm not ok with a kind of 2 that isn't wire-equivalent to 3.
>>> 
>>> Matthew Kaufman
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance avt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> avt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 