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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 21 February 2014 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F531A01F4 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:55:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZi8h98-_l3D for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB9D1A0208 for <clue@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.11]) by qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id V3Ks1n0060EZKEL564ux21; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:54:57 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id V4ux1n00A3ZTu2S3M4uxl0; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:54:57 +0000
Message-ID: <530784E1.7020100@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:54:57 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: clue@ietf.org
References: <49E45C59CA48264997FEBFB29B6BC2D60C9D5FDA32@CRPMBOXPRD07.polycom.com>
In-Reply-To: <49E45C59CA48264997FEBFB29B6BC2D60C9D5FDA32@CRPMBOXPRD07.polycom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1393001697; bh=r4WgsUEzfpxNgExr9stv1jE58rrDI8A9NiST7YkGZuY=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=YICS+hv3bbxFSKCej4rPVkGfFPzbM+of3bJAsQjRQkxdErKwDgS6ZcmzzV1cc2YW4 VC2bfQ7GuLqRGUUEzyxWAuw0GtLKd5TYv+1r/Q7CwihEgK1iOE9QirNyNlhX1Zm7vf n9RaOFkyRHW7PKsgz1fzlXBjJu0jp6QWOBQHKcDeZDhyvgKHt9BK4MEkfqVmtA+0PP 3djxfjNzV7yE56Ipvq1bNJQZptv/0JpZKAyjVv2EjfFxT7bvyJqpe7ptNjIlpfWz+7 B/rN3ikzMAeyvHMwm5MyB7R/hJpxbBt+6M/VntBYsPnuJCZVu9HqFgWXVOBURbVfHZ jL172C0Mqt/Uw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/Fiml73NHTPbrUWFQ-S0qjQ8kaqg
Subject: Re: [clue] contradiction in framework about simultaneous captures in a CSE
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:55:03 -0000

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