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

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

On 14.06.13, 23:15, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>> Per some of the previous discussion threads (see e.g.
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11019.html),
>>> 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.
>>
>> OK, so doesn't this mean all plans should be given equal time to
>> discuss their take on this issue?
>>
> I don't believe it is or should be a plan-specific discussion, so no.

Could we then maybe have that discussion scheduled in the agenda, 
please? Right now it seems to only contain points specific to Plan A or 
Plan B.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Sorry, I am confused again. No Plan, Plan A and Plan B demonstrate
>> versions of SDP that can be used in multi-stream scenarios. Yet, for
>> some reason we will only be discussing the validity of Plan A and Plan
>> B's approaches.
>>
>> Could you please explain why that is?
>>
> Because "no plan" doesn't seem to be asking MMUSIC to do anything

The thing that No Plan really needs from MMUSIC is to validate the way 
it uses m= lines for multiple RTP flows. If we can make sure that this 
is discussed (independently of how streams will be accepted and 
rejected) then I am fine.

Thanks,
Emil


-- 
https://jitsi.org