[MMUSIC] The way forward wih mux-exclusive

Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fandreas@cisco.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 E86B212D0CF for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wt2-Q02z763L for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C807127058 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1478; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460126399; x=1461335999; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=vdCysDLkKuA9x8wJcrUFYitg+f2UwnUMUn6kXVN9RXo=; b=i/9Vcg/ZWFkamT6+P9tmEdVGQtDlDF3GKxnnikLm5k0WP3JS9Gny6h0P CJR/y/weDyAXdZEJPTLpbgx2YAt+PAByGh9xW1xDbmSYzPYP/gCC9xt/E 5ySqyzc6+BrrjAzl9yEOH92e85bXu5MmKQemIIXNtpIBDYAP91Z8vX69q Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAgB8wgdX/5FdJa1cgzdTfbIZgRyEC?= =?us-ascii?q?SeCYAENgXMhhyE4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RrFTYKNgIFFgsCCwMCAQIBSw0IAQEXiAw?= =?us-ascii?q?Onm+PXZICAQEBAQEFAQEBARgEfIUljAqCVgEEmASBLYZ4gkODJIFnhE2DBYVUj?= =?us-ascii?q?yUeAQFChAMgMAGJOAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,454,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="95204256"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2016 14:39:36 +0000
Received: from [10.82.232.203] (rtp-vpn5-203.cisco.com [10.82.232.203]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u38EdZxL029651 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 14:39:35 GMT
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
From: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5707C2A6.2060001@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:39:34 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/5OWNyDa4PpLbeX5mZ77zYMjqsBA>
Subject: [MMUSIC] The way forward wih mux-exclusive
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 08 Apr 2016 14:40:01 -0000

Greetings

We recently went through WGLC on the mux-exclusive draft 
(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-03.txt). 
Following the WGLC, a question was raised as to whether we really need 
the mux-exclusive mechanism described in the draft or not. The issue was 
discussed further in the MMUSIC WG meeting this week in Buenos Aires 
which yielded the following outcomes:

- There was agreement that we should have a signaled solution
- It's important to get a solution quickly since this issue is holding 
up progress on other drafts that rtcweb is dependent on
- The only two proposals that got support were "rtcp:0" and 
"rtcp-mux-exclusive"
- Everybody in the room could live with either "rtcp:0" or 
"rtcp-mux-exclusive"
- A hum between the two slightly favored "rtcp-mux-exclusive, but 
overall it was inconclusive in forming a consensus

A couple of key participants in the mailing list discussion (EKR and 
Martin Thomson) were not able to attend to attend the MMUSIC session, 
however Christer subsequently met with them, and they they graciously 
agreed to respect the consensus established in the meeting.

Based on all of this, and since we currently have a WG adopted draft for 
rtcp-mux-exclusive that went through a WGLC already, we want to continue 
with the rtcp-mux-exclusive solution. If anybody objects to this, please 
let us know no later than Friday, April 15.

Thanks

     Bo & Flemming (MMUSIC chairs)