Re: [MMUSIC] Unified Plan for SDP Handling

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E65E21F99F8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 QfREpJ1-Pj+w for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc1-s9.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s9.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B8011E824E for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W53 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s9.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:52:53 -0700
X-TMN: [jALCbbfY0SM1MtqvIm1IEjFcUDYoGAjaeUNHL+8xzUs=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W53D70206AAAC64B3A8AFFD93630@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_e19360b0-68a9-4770-b130-b85922c3f90e_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:52:53 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <BB769F52-396C-432C-ADCC-18EF08E0C324@vidyo.com>
References: <BLU401-EAS23CBB88519F32CC778A2993600@phx.gbl>, <BB769F52-396C-432C-ADCC-18EF08E0C324@vidyo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2013 02:52:53.0672 (UTC) FILETIME=[1090FA80:01CE842B]
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Unified Plan for SDP Handling
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 02:53:14 -0000

Jonathan said: 
> > The app-id idea is useful for multiple reasons.  One reason similar RTP extensions are used today is to avoid having to parse the payload to figure out what the stream is (e.g. looking for parameter sets or SEI NAL units).  
> 
> That sounds like an interesting idea, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, that sounds very different from what app-id (or the correlator, in Unified) is doing.  Those are for identifying streams, whereas this sounds more like identifying the sub-structure of a stream (i.e. which packets contain parameter sets or SEIs).

[BA] My understanding of the problem solved by deployed RTP extensions expressing layering is similar to 
that in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fineberg-avtext-temporal-layer-ext 

That is, these extensions are not used to flag packets containing parameter sets or SEIs.  Rather the
desire is to allow the MANE to avoid having to decrypt the SRTP packet to figure out what layer it
corresponds to before deciding whether to drop or forward it.  In a circumstance where the SSRC
either isn't pre-declared in SDP O/A or could correspond to multiple layers, that makes some sense.