Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 20 November 2012 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 9D72F21F8837 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:02:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nH8m8xdTReIP for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s6.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s6.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88B521F881B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU002-W201 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s6.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:02:22 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU002-W201896A3F181BC332CB557D93550@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c3aa5e91-45e2-4f45-b90f-a53d32cdb849_"
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.126]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <hkaplan@acmepacket.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:02:22 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <535E4BAA-BE0C-47D1-A659-17B4043031EE@acmepacket.com>
References: <A444ACE8-4EDD-48DC-86C8-7CCBB40173CE@acmepacket.com>, , <50ABCF23.9020605@alum.mit.edu>, <BLU002-W128C9125402F8F0BEE76FE793550@phx.gbl>, <535E4BAA-BE0C-47D1-A659-17B4043031EE@acmepacket.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2012 20:02:22.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[F429F6A0:01CDC759]
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:02:25 -0000

"NO".

From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com
To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
CC: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:51:33 +0000










I take this is a "NO" vote? 



-hadriel







On Nov 20, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:



To Paul's point, there may be a scenario in which some m lines would be looped back and others would not.  For example, what if I want to do a loopback test of audio/video but also want to be able to converse via RTT to discuss the results of
 the test in progress.  In that case the audio and video m lines would be looped back but the text line would not be. 





> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:42:43 -0500

> From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu

> To: mmusic@ietf.org

> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing

> 

> NO

> 

> *Why* should the draft be limited this way if it need not be?

> 

> Thanks,

> Paul

> 

> On 11/20/12 1:16 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> > Howdy,

> > during IESG review of the media-loopback draft, a discussion arose regarding the language around indicating media-loopback support per media description (i.e., per m-line), in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

> >

> > My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to indicate media-loopback; in other words it's an all-or-nothing in both the offer+answer, and either every media stream is looped back, or none are. However the text currently doesn't make
 this clear, and it could be argued either way, with pro's/con's either way too; so I'd like the WG's consensus on whether it should in fact be an all-or-none approach, or not.

> >

> > Please respond to this email by **Tuesday, December 4th** with a "YES" if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back, or "NO" if it should allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others are not.

> >

> > For reference, the draft is here:

> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-24

> >

> > -hadriel

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > mmusic mailing list

> > mmusic@ietf.org

> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

> >

> 

> _______________________________________________

> mmusic mailing list

> mmusic@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic



_______________________________________________

mmusic mailing list

mmusic@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic