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

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 14 June 2013 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC0821F9D17 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.074
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.074 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U6EFvA4xYexT for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f48.google.com (mail-qe0-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA7D21F9D19 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 2so568234qea.7 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yw6vEZvV9GRZDZI5+hYMqtF+RwhpnZ9Ji47etUz4XwU=; b=D/30sVBvh9UX2LwI3+g2rETumKD8M2NA2Cww8ff0tsDuqhmhTdV35XeXxXauTruJrW kKomj+QHeFJAGG3jwnXSeCdjS3/0QYHiQhVTGoM7FTM4oW7+M6+rxQLOr5BgRwZV00my uRCrjRM4WyE8FpJRzP4kj+Nho+Qbl8mmEXJS77TUvmk9lNnspr6XaQRW6SmnrqZ64Kh7 p0Zk9nDn/URiC0h5wvcxlW+vqPD4zgdToVmD4watCxRrYlfhOUUF9owHstNEzrv4e14v c3KWhthZLWviLcU8lNebnkYYLPjtZ0sNoCrSYpbdB0cGh3pvQKYLVoaU6tE8HKBauojv yjmQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.0.145 with SMTP id 17mr4614032qee.26.1371239497481; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.117.130 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51BB6A8C.6090400@ericsson.com>
References: <51BB5EFE.5090903@ericsson.com> <51BB68B2.3060104@jitsi.org> <51BB6A8C.6090400@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:51:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN4yuuxi6WKR-L86PQiWxQBXpAW6FFrHJaaW2Pp8Zrg5bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:51:43 -0000

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