Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda

On 6/14/13 3:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> On 6/14/13 10:02 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>> On 14.06.13, 20:20, Ari Keränen wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Given the guidance from the RTCWEB WG chairs that the "no-plan"
>>>> discussion should essentially happen at the RTCWEB WG, the MMUSIC
>>>> interim meeting on June 17th will be focused on Plan A and Plan B.
>>>
>>> I assume this implies that MMUSIC considers it entirely appropriate to
>>> use SDP for signalling multiple streams the way No Plan suggests (i.e.
>>> one m= line can carry as many RTP flows as it likes). So much so, that
>>> no further discussion is necessary on the subject.
>>>
>>> Could you please confirm that I am reading this properly?
>>
>> This means that the interim time should be used mainly to discuss plan A vs
>> plan B merits, not whether RTCWEB should use A/B, or no-plan.
> [MB] So what happens if RTCWEB decides that they prefer "no-plan"?  In
> that case, MMUSIC will have wasted their time deciding A versus B
> since there aren't hard requirements from other potential users of
> this SDP based multi-stream signaling mechanism.
We are knee-deep in here already, so an extra 3 hour conference call 
seems like a small price to pay for potentially making progress (and at 
the very least get more clarity on the Plan A and Plan B proposals based 
on "higher than e-mail bandwidth" presentation and discussion)

>   CLUE isn't quite
> there yet. Now, it's possible either A or B would be okay, but that's
> not a given right now.
>
> I certainly understand the frustration of the chairs in trying to
> manage this work since a lot of relevant discussion has been on the
> RTCWEB WG mailing list.  And, I do certainly agree that you all do
> have a milestone for this work, I just think this meeting is premature
> until there is indeed consensus in the RTCWEB WG that no plan is off
> the table and the CLUE WG is a point that it's clear how A versus B
> fit into their solution and whether possibly a plan C might be more
> optimal. [/MB]
The downside seems limited, and we know there is a lot of interest in 
trying to make progress.

Thanks

-- Flemming

>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ari
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> .
>