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

Flemming Andreasen <> Fri, 14 June 2013 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA92821F9A59 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.539
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LhtQXLfNZmJC for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB8921F8437 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2453; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371240476; x=1372450076; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3K+z+kGln3fzwHhCxb6Bf8AuDhvX5PrR0v+GUs0uOV4=; b=bn3cQnJrTl+iWD2KEMbGG1LShzRAP7hRp4Ne6/llZB9xF2QKHaHhmXs1 zaFcpsrhcOnVr444huPYFeMeOza8EoSxTCLroh4SssiDKpDyExjtfIcZJ eDZ31ua30N/xc3+83NNKaiNBkBxT6jYDqWRokNWVJ2IGDiGrPwZkq7nVx I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,868,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="220035624"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2013 20:07:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5EK7s9l013113; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:07:55 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:07:54 -0400
From: Flemming Andreasen <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mary Barnes <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Ari Keränen <>, mmusic <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:08:00 -0000

On 6/14/13 3:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Ari Keränen <> 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.


-- Flemming

>> Cheers,
>> Ari
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
> .