Re: [MMUSIC] Another bundling proposal - Christer's comments

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> I had previously provided comments to Dale off-line. Some has been 
>> addressed in the -03 version of the draft. But, I still have some 
>> questions.
>
>I'm now in the position to deal with technical improvements.
>
>> First, unless I've missed something, the mechanism is still for RTP 
>> ONLY. It is not possible to e.g. put the DataChannel in the bundle. I 
>> think we asap need to decide whether that is a requirement or not.
>
> That's true.  Although none of the other 5 proposals I've seen discuss SCTP/DataChannel multiplexing either.  Fortunately, adding support for SCTP isn't difficult, either with encapsulation or without.

You would encapsulate SCTP inside the new payload type?

>> Second, you use the non-bundle m- lines for codec negotiation etc. 
>> But, previously, when MMT was discussed, I believe that people 
>> indicated that they do not want to "refer" to other m- lines from the 
>> MMT m- line. Instead,  the information should be explicitly provided 
>> in the MMT m- line (which is the reason why the SDP size gets pretty 
>> big with MMT, as most information is duplicated).
>
> I've heard that mentioned before, but I've never seen the argument in favor of it.  Can someone tell me what it is, or provide a pointer?

It was indicated in a meeting (at the moment I can't remember which meeting, though), but I never checked whether it was added to the minutes. I guess it will be on audio recording.

But, as far as I remember, there were never much discussion about it. It was an open issue on one of my slides, and people simply indicated support for adding explicit information, rather the referencing.

Regards,

Christer