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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 15 November 2011 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEF121F8D00 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:11:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H9ZIAJnlHmIa for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:11:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lon1-msapost-3.mail.demon.net (lon1-msapost-3.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0D721F8CFE for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:11:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-20d9.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.32.217]) by lon1-post-3.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1RQ8Ud-0002ay-eX; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:11:28 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <EADCEEE0AE4A7F46BD61061696794D98F7543B@SZXEML519-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:11:16 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4323622-5B09-47BD-BA8E-69791BCDBA7D@csperkins.org>
References: <EADCEEE0AE4A7F46BD61061696794D98F753FD@SZXEML519-MBS.china.huawei.com> <EADCEEE0AE4A7F46BD61061696794D98F7543B@SZXEML519-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: Roni even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Call for consensus on multiplexing multipe media streams.
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:11:30 -0000

On 14 Nov 2011, at 16:56, Roni even wrote:
> At the AVTcore session we had two presentations. One from Magnus proposing the multiplexing of multiple RTP sessions over a single transport flow and the second from Jonathan Lennox proposing multiplexing multiple media types in a single RTP session.
>  
> Magnus asked in the beginning of his presentation if the WG believe that the problem of providing multiple RTP sessions over a single transport flow should be solved. The response from the room was that it was already discussed in IETF 81 and there was interest in doing this work.
> In IETF81 there was an interest in doing both options. During the session today we did not have time to ask for consensus.
>  
>  
> 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.

I support option (2), and think option (3) is problematic for the reasons described in draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-02. 

I can live with option (1), provided the limitations of both approaches are clearly specified. 

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/