IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Tue, 20 November 2012 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==6713412e283==HKaplan@acmepacket.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 BA24921F86E5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:16:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wQdSZyPyB9Ny for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.acmepacket.com (mx2.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AF821F8690 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:16:06 -0800 (PST)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1353435364-03fc2136a5a6c570001-mNOVBD
Received: from Mail1.acmepacket.com (mail1.acmepacket.com [10.0.0.21]) by mx2.acmepacket.com with ESMTP id nNUqbswRHzgXNkIi (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:16:04 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.93]) by Mail1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.47]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:16:04 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
Thread-Index: AQHNx0sa0Z8XaBiMtU6BXcD6oqpbWQ==
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:16:03 +0000
Message-ID: <A444ACE8-4EDD-48DC-86C8-7CCBB40173CE@acmepacket.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.0.0.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8EC966236C67DD4787072BD2647D9BB5@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.acmepacket.com[10.0.0.21]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1353435364
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA
X-Barracuda-URL: http://216.41.24.99:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at acmepacket.com
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.114768 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO Envelope rcpt doesn't match header
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:16:47 -0000

Howdy,
during IESG review of the media-loopback draft, a discussion arose regarding the language around indicating media-loopback support per media description (i.e., per m-line), in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to indicate media-loopback; in other words it's an all-or-nothing in both the offer+answer, and either every media stream is looped back, or none are.  However the text currently doesn't make this clear, and it could be argued either way, with pro's/con's either way too; so I'd like the WG's consensus on whether it should in fact be an all-or-none approach, or not.

Please respond to this email by **Tuesday, December 4th** with a "YES" if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back, or "NO" if it should allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others are not.

For reference, the draft is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-24

-hadriel

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status