Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 27 May 2013 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 123F021F8D94 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 ZEi1hY9DAr1U for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC0E21F8D00 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id h6Nl1l0011HzFnQ596vt5R; Mon, 27 May 2013 18:55:53 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id h6vt1l0073ZTu2S3a6vt0b; Mon, 27 May 2013 18:55:53 +0000
Message-ID: <51A3AC38.4030501@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 14:55:52 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <749DCA95-2D40-46B3-9A3D-E63356C7A2C1@csperkins.org> <1892A917-C408-4E8F-AB19-206ED508762C@csperkins.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3799BC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <4EDA75BD-D753-4153-929B-10427274224D@csperkins.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3799EE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <599C780A-F483-470E-91F2-68DBA605C79C@csperkins.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C379D6E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <64C06EE8-A16D-4C3E-8A11-D6400F620A8E@csperkins.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C379DC8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C379DC8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1369680953; bh=1lF5MesolGYYAjOwiggQSdU4wT4V7MqeCnR0dbLxMN4=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=B2Kt5lv6vMOiiEwNEsWBGg9Hxdobn06Vlkgmb/Y6lMrl386fv79sdq7UJB9sAR3lW Um5ZfoNMhuBaz0ac50E05A22rwcsgdskrS5XpFpIYS1pKM1PVEVj3iiCFk/gWwKtWs A1M7EkAKntm4KNYAcCfaZq/nzUtUa/tlLalp5pEpl8HNjnTP/HARy83rCwb+XnHIC5 1yyaQlU7zz1eijGv+YGoGMQxEguE6W33k0hSZ5ZD1HgO8qIdYm9gPk+lsmE/37mgbl UKGwTj6oEf/rzfKc24nV9wG8WTPjrSD6SuknhsedHbgKaMhzDkqNFjv6onPEmjEjoJ M9PDQfFEz0Xsg==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
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: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:55:59 -0000

On 5/27/13 2:43 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>>>>> v=0
>>>>>>> o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.anywhere.com s= c=IN IP4
>>>>>>> host.anywhere.com
>>>>>>> t=0 0
>>>>>>> m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96
>>>>>>> a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000
>>>>>>> m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP ???
>>>>>>> a=rtpmap:??? AMR-WB/16000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure I get your point. You can have two different payload types that map to the same payload format in a single RTP session, since
>>>>>> you can always distinguish what payload format is intended. You can't have the same payload type mapping to two different payload
>>>>>> formats in a single RTP session, since you can't then infer what payload format was meant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please not that both PTs map to the SAME payload format :)
>>>>
>>>> I thought I addressed that in my reply.
>>>
>>> I am not sure you did - at least I didn't get it :)
>>>
>>> Again, my understanding of what you said is that, for any payload format within an RTP session, the PT value has to be unique.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> In the example above the same payload format, within the same RTP session, is used in two separate m- lines. But, I still can't use the same PT value for both m- lines, even if the payload format is the same, can I?
>
>> Why not? I don't see any problem mapping the same payload type to the exact same payload format in two different m= lines.
>
> But, when I receive media with that payload format, how do I know to which m- line it "belongs", as the same PT value is used for both m- lines?

The PT can be viewed as method of last resort for associating a packet 
with an m-line, because the PT is the one thing that could be used for 
that association that you *must* specify in RTP. Everything else that 
*could* be used (e.g., SSRC) is optional.

So if nothing else is present in the SDP that could be used then the PTs 
need to be unique per-m-line. But if something else is present, then it 
is no longer necessary that the PTs be unique.

	Thanks,
	Paul