Re: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB inteirmmeeting

Magnus Westerlund <> Tue, 22 January 2013 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A4121F86EF; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, FS_BROKEN_MEETING=10.357, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlMn6xZd9o6r; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:01:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE2621F8650; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:01:17 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f0d6d000007e61-d7-50fe717c1401
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7B.FD.32353.C717EF05; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:01:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:01:16 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:01:14 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roni Even <>
References: <> <> <> <007d01cdf88d$1b4f2020$51ed6060$>
In-Reply-To: <007d01cdf88d$1b4f2020$51ed6060$>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5N4b8Ag5WzdC3eX9C16JjMZjF1 +WMWi7/tzBZr/7WzWzTOtXNg85jyeyOrx85Zd9k9liz5yRTAHMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV0ftY rmCeaMXZGa+ZGxi/CHQxcnJICJhIHN7znBnCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwElGiSnT+lghnOWMEofX tDCCVPEKaEtcuvaGFcRmEVCVmNWxnA3EZhOwkLj5oxHMFhUIlthwcBUTRL2gxMmZT1hAbBEB NYnXaz+DbWAWmMkk8ejYcbAiYYEAiXWfdjNBbNvPKLH2zmGwDZxAU/d/2sHexcgBdJ+4xJo3 HCBhZgE9iSlXIQ5iFpCXaN46G+wFIaDjGpo6WCcwCs1CsnsWkpZZSFoWMDKvYmTPTczMSS83 38QIDOuDW34b7GDcdF/sEKM0B4uSOG+464UAIYH0xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYzL VaTyLRedYT8va9SikGnJ6f18x0bxlxWTnVrco58+MD1tZx0sd6wiln/eRc6t0QFr6mujbpl9 UBfxOGTLu8qPS6Ose/XlytNTS4pCYz4p5v1RzHKIcp6fae9tfKu7c9vFq067Kn+/N5V3Ka2+ cl74SFWwff+9uTyNaWuXLNDZPE0tSKe+VYmlOCPRUIu5qDgRAE7PMK45AgAA
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings' <>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=27Ari_Ker=E4nen=27?= <>,, 'Gonzalo Camarillo' <>, 'Flemming Andreasen' <>,
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB inteirmmeeting
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:01:18 -0000

On 2013-01-22 11:41, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> My concern is that it is not easy to provide a proposal to a subject that is
> not clear. I also have views about these topics but seeing no requirements
> or use cases it is difficult to write a draft.
> I believe that the actual syntax depends on the bundle decision so any work
> now need to assume a bundle architecture.

And I think the question of how one deals with multiple media streams in
an RTP session is an important input into the BUNDLE discussion.

> Are there any requirements for a solution even if we are looking for a new
> way or to leverage existing mechanisms like RFC 5576.

To my understanding what we are trying to achieve is making progress
into three different subjects.

1) How multiple media streams are handled in SDP. I think there exist
two proposal from the MMUSIC discussion:
  A) One media description per RTP session and media type. Each media
     stream are identified and provided with additional information
     using stream specific parameters.

  B) Each media description is a media stream and RTP sessions are then
     expressed as Bundle of media descriptions.

2) How "Bundle" is going to be done. Which of the three proposals do we
   really believe in. Note that direction of 1) will affect how commonly
   required the usage of "Bundle" will be. Thus affect the trade-off

3) What is common relations exist between concepts in WebRTC, CLUE and
other multi-media communication contexts that needs to be identified and
signalled and at what scopes. This influences the solution for
MediaStream identities, our SRCNAME proposal in AVTEXT and CLUE work.
There are a number of commonalities here that should be considered.

> I will try to write something based on the CLUE RTP mapping draft we are
> discussing that tries to address a similar problem as far as I understand.

Please do, the more informed everyone is, the better.

> BTW: will these drafts be MMUSIC drafts or RTCweb?

I don't know . I think ours is likely MMUSIC. I can't answer for the
other contributions I expect. I guess the important is that all
contributions are announced to the relevant WGs.


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: