Re: [clue] contradiction in framework about simultaneous captures in a CSE

Hi Paul,

I thought of that possibility also.  But I think our intent was for the provider to be able to advertise the complete scene information for original sources, including CSEs, even if the provider didn't include encoding groups for those captures.  I think it is useful to include the CSEs for captures without encoding groups, because the consumer can use this information for choosing captures, or choosing subsets within MCCs.

Another possibility is to say either all captures in a CSE must include an encoding group, or none of the captures in a CSE can include an encoding group.  I can't think of a case that makes sense to include a mixture.

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: clue [mailto:clue-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:55 AM
> To: clue@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [clue] contradiction in framework about simultaneous captures
> in a CSE
> 
> On 2/21/14 10:06 AM, Duckworth, Mark wrote:
> 
> > Here is a proposal for changing the sentence in 7.3:
> >
> > "If all the Captures in a single Capture Scene Entry have an Encoding
> > Group, then the Provider MUST be capable of encoding and sending all
> > those Captures simultaneously."
> >
> > Is that a good change?
> 
> The above implies that if some but not all captures in a CSE have encoding
> groups, then there is no requirement for the provider to be able to send
> them simultaneously.
> 
> Does it make sense to define a CSE containing captures without encoding
> groups?
> 
> Is there any reason to do so?
> 
> ISTM that we could instead say that a CSE MUST NOT reference a capture
> that has no encoding group. Then 7.3 would be ok as it is.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> clue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue