Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda

Flemming Andreasen <> Fri, 14 June 2013 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED0A21F9BA5 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GfdAy0PqNz8F for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF2821F9C95 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2253; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371240047; x=1372449647; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LFjtJa1aMGSOB//WOJlupt3/nOINmsKnOnpYvbTUyYc=; b=fHRzRFpkZ29ntvHFQugrYyMJBBhN8TgIkFzoIMnJtmV48WAJixokrCVc +QYrjaTVxiTUjkL+/BCTy34UsfyadZSuHD0vli6kdZAN8sHpUDKKzYHWa bCqRK3JItJA+11xmE0xepqePIZYb6fpfOzukH7mNg5RZHzsapyk6li9gX Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlIHAB12u1GtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABbgwkwqxuTc4EKFnSCIwEBAQQyAQVAARALDgoJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBBYgFDLlwjhaBMgeDYAOXQZFCgysggTU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,868,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="223030394"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2013 20:00:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5EK0jAQ017991; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:00:45 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:00:45 -0400
From: Flemming Andreasen <>
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: Emil Ivov <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Ari Keränen <>, mmusic <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:00:52 -0000

Hi Emil

Per some of the previous discussion threads (see e.g., 
there is clearly some ambiguity around exactly what an m-line conveys, 
both with and without bundle. This lack of clarity potentially affects 
all of the different plan proposals as well as as 4566bis, and as such 
is an entirely reasonable discussion to have in MMUSIC. To the extent 
that resolution of this impacts progress on the Plan A versus Plan B 
discussion, it is also an appropropriate discussion to have next week.

What is not appropriate at this time however is to turn that into a 
discussion of choosing "no plan" for RTCWeb since MMUSIC cannot (and 
should not) make that decision (as clarified by the RTCWeb chairs as well).


-- Flemming

On 6/14/13 3:33 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> On 14.06.13, 21:10, Ari Keränen wrote:
>> On 6/14/13 10:02 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>> On 14.06.13, 20:20, Ari Keränen wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Given the guidance from the RTCWEB WG chairs that the "no-plan"
>>>> discussion should essentially happen at the RTCWEB WG, the MMUSIC
>>>> interim meeting on June 17th will be focused on Plan A and Plan B.
>>> I assume this implies that MMUSIC considers it entirely appropriate to
>>> use SDP for signalling multiple streams the way No Plan suggests (i.e.
>>> one m= line can carry as many RTP flows as it likes). So much so, that
>>> no further discussion is necessary on the subject.
>>> Could you please confirm that I am reading this properly?
>> This means that the interim time should be used mainly to discuss plan A
>> vs plan B merits, not whether RTCWEB should use A/B, or no-plan.
> Sure. I get this and I find it very reasonable.
> However, just as Plans A and B, No Plan says: here's an SDP that you 
> can use when doing multiple streams.
> So, I just want to confirm that we will not be discussing the SDP 
> sides of the proposal in No Plan because they make perfect sense from 
> an MMUSIC point of view and no discussion is really necessary. It'll 
> be up to other working groups to decide whether they'd like to use 
> that particular (and valid) approach.
> Emil