Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for what bundle should say about demux

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Mon, 27 May 2013 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9736121F9377 for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 06:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bOjhLEJtIga2 for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 06:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3B521F9610 for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 06:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2606; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369660561; x=1370870161; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=10RvAOIwSpVbrqkt7Op6yR4lEhm/3SXPYF8St1j6TIY=; b=Cigo/Qp09EhNIza5Ua5TJUpXnRHZ0ojn0uRhM2IfhN9cvc2GAmfa79zb jZkYuUPGFSNj3q7xz4vOH5mXmnu/m0ebdb4wgkZQUgAjWobqIT+cH1PKX g33Iw0LcHHDMXWvh205C0gbBDDvPck8ikDfEB4HCqPdyTim87o+3jna2X 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AncFAPZbo1GtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagwgwwgSBBRZ0giMBAQEDAQEBATc0CwULAgEIDgoKFBAnCyUCBA4FCId/Bgy9bo5qAjEHgnNhA5NqhHqQF4MPgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,751,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="212399401"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 May 2013 13:16:01 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4RDG1xr008117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 May 2013 13:16:01 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:16:00 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Colin Perkins <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Proposal for what bundle should say about demux
Thread-Index: AQHOWtxUVjr8src5NEuGXcSJwmehbA==
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:15:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mmusic WG <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for what bundle should say about demux
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 13:16:07 -0000

Great - sounds like we agree this algorithm will work.

On May 27, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Colin Perkins <> wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree.
> As I said in my previous message to the list, if we are agreed that the m= lines in a BUNDLE group form a single RTP session, then I believe we need unique payload types across all m= lines. In this case, BUNDLE can simply say that regular RTP source demultiplexing based on the SSRC has to be performed, then the payload type can be used to match sources to m= lines for those applications that care about doing so. 
> If we're not agreed that the m= lines in a BUNDLE group form a single RTP session, then we have a lot more to discuss...
> Colin
> On 23 May 2013, at 19:02, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> Here's is my proposal for roughly what the bundle draft should say about this demux topic 
>> Application will decide which packet processing pipeline to pass an given RTP/RTCP packet to based on what the application knows:
>> 1) If future RFCs define new things (like RTP header extension), that explicitly specify the mapping, check if that future RFC is in use and if so then use that to form the mapping 
>> 2) If the PT type is uniquely identifies a mapping, use that to form the mapping
>> 3) If application knows the SSRC the other side will use, use that to form the mapping 
>> 4) if there is no way to know which pipeline to pass it too, the packet MAY be discarded or the application MAY decide to buffer it until the mapping is known 
>> This is trivial to implement. It meets the requirements for Plan A, Plan B, UCIF, CLUE, and so on. 
>> We could swap the order of step 2 and 3, My thinking for this order was the only time it made any difference the order was if the PT were unique and indicated a different mapping than the SSRC. The only way this could happen is with a SSRC collision so the PT is the one that would be correct not the SSRC. If someone feels strongly the order of steps 2 and 3 should be the opposite way around, I can live with that.
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list