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

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Mon, 27 May 2013 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF8C21F92EB for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nJTc-19JKCaV for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 06:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788A121F92F5 for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 06:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1354; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369662743; x=1370872343; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4HPEIDNNyVx9s/zg+nx0/XlYxoIlwV2ZaoX32ot0I+w=; b=WWOCSiXV6EO8s8b7KoMzvEnocmUtzfKFrEj7t+TdUK/2pk8WBIDL1e3A CoZwzpwkrCA1JsUmVRt6Ipw0I0rImjGlKhexkEpltffkIQhD/rrJdIeC4 oElRmUUCnYuz0s2/NqIEWa0Nejyfo2SSWJfw3QnN5G0wX4h9qfxi7jqAN s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFALljo1GtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwjCNIEFFnSCIwEBAQMBeRACAQgOCgokMiUCBA4FCId/Br4CjmoCMQeCc2EDiGegFIMPgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,751,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="215386286"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 May 2013 13:52:23 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4RDqN3l006432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 May 2013 13:52:23 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:52:22 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Emil Ivov <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
Thread-Index: AQHOWt+UtKSl0n/dG02LnqM8tZy+HJkZYOaA
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:51:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mmusic <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
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: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:52:35 -0000

On May 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Emil Ivov <> wrote:

> On May 27, 2013 4:27 PM, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> wrote:
> > Sure, suspect many people agree with you but the media pipeline is
> >  more than just the codec. So if I have 150 thumbnail videos that all 
> > using VP8, using one PT for all of them might be fine given they are all 
> > the same codec but they still might need SSRC to be able to figure out 
> > which window to render them in.
> How is tuis a demuxing issue?
> Isn't this more closely related to application policies and hence subject to application specific signalling? Of course that signalling can use SSRCs but this does this make it an RTP issue?
> Emil

I agree. I don't think it is an AVT* issues, I think it is a MMUSIC issues. One of the application signaling approaches often used for RTP is SDP. This is a SDP issue. In the plan A context, it can be roughly summarized as how do the RTP packets know which m-line in the SDP they are associated with. I think Ted put it better when he said which processing pipeline. Then things like like the content attribute in SDP can bind it to the applications intent. In the plan B context you might not use the word m-line but it is roughly the same problem.