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

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> 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.
[MB] So what happens if RTCWEB decides that they prefer "no-plan"?  In
that case, MMUSIC will have wasted their time deciding A versus B
since there aren't hard requirements from other potential users of
this SDP based multi-stream signaling mechanism.  CLUE isn't quite
there yet. Now, it's possible either A or B would be okay, but that's
not a given right now.

I certainly understand the frustration of the chairs in trying to
manage this work since a lot of relevant discussion has been on the
RTCWEB WG mailing list.  And, I do certainly agree that you all do
have a milestone for this work, I just think this meeting is premature
until there is indeed consensus in the RTCWEB WG that no plan is off
the table and the CLUE WG is a point that it's clear how A versus B
fit into their solution and whether possibly a plan C might be more
optimal. [/MB]
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic