Re: [clue] My view if CLUE status and topics for Interim meeting

Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D88321F8619 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 juQ9Z3g5xHkG for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DBD21F85FC for <clue@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so4947608lag.31 for <clue@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=67nkx6dd/yT9IL3yoDadwCD4AvwqiwU9P+dNQrranB0=; b=wPzR7+EasFkHN5DyJZ+YKD+I/v7+J5yWcgVwZ5RdN+RbwjbgLUDkHSaRt0lsK5wmu3 cOVcTHAOALA9LWPoQnwXvBCFbigf3ZNTONCVKw4ve5DLwLy387L2/m571uq9WXc1w/iF eg5xX1rQpBF+QdmSpbjGXGonCEKpYQeWGfLuUXGB2kKdP6iYKg+132aVQlPNZrGITBjS M4/stu2AEqVKq1oUi7XnY2KVYc5XUuSENKOX90bCKxvpGizcw1tpG/EH34jOH2dVQYXV q9NbgaL/+Fuk00MIj162wDzvmZY32dAMkhpr56T+CbRRqi2w4fEzMQkvF18pCTs7up00 Ox0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.104.171 with SMTP id gf11mr23288216lab.5.1337693165319; Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.56.13 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4fbb5e2f.b448b40a.38d1.17da@mx.google.com>
References: <4fbb5e2f.b448b40a.38d1.17da@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:26:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJNg7VJLyv0Edv2JdS1G7c+xUp3NnJGo7xax9L4Z+7UQAx17bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: clue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clue] My view if CLUE status and topics for Interim meeting
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:26:07 -0000

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I think that we are in a good shape in the framework and think that in order
> to expedite the work we need to address the following topic and I think it
> will be good use of our time to do it in the Interim meeting.
>
> These are the topics as I see them. Please feel free to comment.
>
>
>
> Data model
>
> At the last Interim meeting in February Andy presented an initial data
> structure in
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/02/15/clue/slides/clue-5.doc .
> This is an XML schema that has the outline of the data but it is very basic
> and need more work. There was a discussion if the encoding group information
> can be described using SDP and
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-romanow-clue-sdp-usage-01 is an attempt to
> describe the encoding groups in SDP. It was presented in IETF83 (Paris) but
> there was no real progress or discussion since then.
>
> CLUE transport.
>
> The group is still evaluating what is the right transport for the CLUE
> protocol. The major options are using a second MIME body in offer answer
> (similar to the approach taken in SIPREC
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-03 ) or using RFC3264
> offer answer to negotiate an end to end channel that will carry the CLUE
> protocol (maybe something like BFCP). The draft
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wenger-clue-transport-02 was presented in
> IETF83 (Paris) but the issue is still open.
>

Given that rtcweb has firmly decided to use SRTP, and only SRTP, for
transport, shouldn't
SRTP be added to the mix here ?

Regards
Marshall


> Some other work on the topic is in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cazeaux-clue-sip-signaling-01 which
> suggests using SDP with offer answer.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-clue-protocol-choices-evaluation-00
> is trying to evaluate both transport options.
>
> The solution should take into account the call flow which is still an open
> issue.
>
> CLUE call flow
>
> The framework talks about 3 messages (consumer capabilities, provider
> advertisement and consumer configuration). There is an ongoing discussion if
> we need all three and how they fit with the offer answer exchange. The more
> general question is how many messages it take to establish a TP call. While
> the provider advertisement and consumer configuration are used to negotiate
> the media captures that will be used in the call it is not clear why we need
> the consumer capability. The justification for the consumer capabilities may
> be to allow the provider to advertise the relevant capture scene entries,
> for example a 3 camera system sending an advertisement to a 2 screen system
> may offer only capture scene entries relevant to two screens system.
>
> This subject is relevant to the CLUE transport work which will include the
> call flows.
>
>
>
> Mapping of CLUE media captures to RTP payload (SSRC and payload type number)
>
> The media captures provide information about constrains of the streams and
> the spatial relation between them. The streams themselves are described in
> SIP using SDP and they can be identified by their SSRC numbers. The mapping
> between these two is important to allow the receiver of the RTP stream to
> know where to display them.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-even-clue-rtp-mapping-01 is trying to
> propose a solution but need more work. There is a similar requirement in
> RTCweb and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-msid-01 tries
> a different approach. In IETF83 the author of the RTCweb draft was asked to
> look at using grouping and SSRC for this mapping. This may require new
> attribute to the SSRC SDP attribute.
>
>
>
> RTP usage in CLUE
>
> This topic is about multiplexing RTP streams in CLUE. In RTCweb the
> direction is to multiple the audio and video in one UDP session and work is
> now in progress in AVTcore and MMUSIC to address this requirement. In CLUE
> it is desirable to multiplex all the video streams in one UDP connection.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lennox-clue-rtp-usage-03 present and
> recommends the RTP multiplexing mechanism.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roni
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> clue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>