Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c3aa5e91-45e2-4f45-b90f-a53d32cdb849_" X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.126] From: Bernard Aboba To: Hadriel Kaplan Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:02:22 -0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <535E4BAA-BE0C-47D1-A659-17B4043031EE@acmepacket.com> References: , , <50ABCF23.9020605@alum.mit.edu>, , <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" , Paul Kyzivat 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:02:25 -0000 --_c3aa5e91-45e2-4f45-b90f-a53d32cdb849_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "NO". From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com CC: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu=3B mmusic@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing Date: Tue=2C 20 Nov 2012 19:51:33 +0000 =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= I take this is a "NO" vote? =0A= =0A= =0A= -hadriel=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= On Nov 20=2C 2012=2C at 1:56 PM=2C Bernard Aboba wrote:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= To Paul's point=2C there may be a scenario in which some m lines would be l= ooped back and others would not. For example=2C what if I want to do a loo= pback test of audio/video but also want to be able to converse via RTT to d= iscuss the results of=0A= the test in progress. In that case the audio and video m lines would be l= ooped back but the text line would not be.=20 =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= > Date: Tue=2C 20 Nov 2012 13:42:43 -0500 =0A= > From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu =0A= > To: mmusic@ietf.org =0A= > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing =0A= >=20 =0A= > NO =0A= >=20 =0A= > *Why* should the draft be limited this way if it need not be? =0A= >=20 =0A= > Thanks=2C =0A= > Paul =0A= >=20 =0A= > On 11/20/12 1:16 PM=2C Hadriel Kaplan wrote: =0A= > > Howdy=2C =0A= > > during IESG review of the media-loopback draft=2C a discussion arose re= garding the language around indicating media-loopback support per media des= cription (i.e.=2C per m-line)=2C in sections 3.1 and 3.2. =0A= > > =0A= > > My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to in= dicate media-loopback=3B in other words it's an all-or-nothing in both the = offer+answer=2C and either every media stream is looped back=2C or none are= . However the text currently doesn't make=0A= this clear=2C and it could be argued either way=2C with pro's/con's either= way too=3B so I'd like the WG's consensus on whether it should in fact be = an all-or-none approach=2C or not. =0A= > > =0A= > > Please respond to this email by **Tuesday=2C December 4th** with a "YES= " if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back=2C or "NO" if it sho= uld allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others are n= ot. =0A= > > =0A= > > For reference=2C the draft is here: =0A= > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-24 =0A= > > =0A= > > -hadriel =0A= > > =0A= > > _______________________________________________ =0A= > > mmusic mailing list =0A= > > mmusic@ietf.org =0A= > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic =0A= > > =0A= >=20 =0A= > _______________________________________________ =0A= > mmusic mailing list =0A= > mmusic@ietf.org =0A= > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic =0A= =0A= =0A= _______________________________________________ =0A= mmusic mailing list =0A= mmusic@ietf.org =0A= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= = --_c3aa5e91-45e2-4f45-b90f-a53d32cdb849_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"NO".

From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com
To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
= CC: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu=3B mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED = WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
Date: Tue=2C 20 Nov 2012 = 19:51:33 +0000

=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=

=0A=
=0A=
I take this is a "NO" vote? =3B
=0A=

=0A=
=0A=
-hadriel
=0A=

=0A=
=0A=

=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
On Nov 20=2C 2012=2C at 1:56 PM=2C Bernard Aboba <=3Bbernard_aboba@hotmail.com>=3B wrote:=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
To Paul's point=2C there may be a scenario in which some m= lines would be looped back and others would not. =3B For example=2C wh= at 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=0A= the test in progress. =3B In that case the audio and video m lines wou= ld be looped back but the text line would not be. =3B
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= =0A= >=3B Date: Tue=2C 20 Nov 2012 13:42:43 -0500
=0A= >=3B From: =3Bpkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
=0A= >=3B To: =3Bmmusic@ietf.org
=0A= >=3B Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-no= thing
=0A= >=3B =3B
=0A= >=3B NO
=0A= >=3B =3B
=0A= >=3B *Why* should the draft be limited this way if it need not be?
=0A= >=3B =3B
=0A= >=3B Thanks=2C
=0A= >=3B Paul
=0A= >=3B =3B
=0A= >=3B On 11/20/12 1:16 PM=2C Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
=0A= >=3B >=3B Howdy=2C
=0A= >=3B >=3B during IESG review of the media-loopback draft=2C a discussio= n arose regarding the language around indicating media-loopback support per= media description (i.e.=2C per m-line)=2C in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
=0A= >=3B >=3B
=0A= >=3B >=3B My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-l= ines to indicate media-loopback=3B in other words it's an all-or-nothing in= both the offer+answer=2C and either every media stream is looped back=2C o= r none are. However the text currently doesn't make=0A= this clear=2C and it could be argued either way=2C with pro's/con's either= way too=3B so I'd like the WG's consensus on whether it should in fact be = an all-or-none approach=2C or not.
=0A= >=3B >=3B
=0A= >=3B >=3B Please respond to this email by **Tuesday=2C December 4th** w= ith a "YES" if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back=2C or "NO"= if it should allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while ot= hers are not.
=0A= >=3B >=3B
=0A= >=3B >=3B For reference=2C the draft is here:
=0A= >=3B >=3B =3Bhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-24<= /a>
=0A= >=3B >=3B
=0A= >=3B >=3B -hadriel
=0A= >=3B >=3B
=0A= >=3B >=3B _______________________________________________
=0A= >=3B >=3B mmusic mailing list
=0A= >=3B >=3B =3Bmmusic@ietf.org
=0A= >=3B >=3B =3Bhttps:= //www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
=0A= >=3B >=3B
=0A= >=3B =3B
=0A= >=3B _______________________________________________
=0A= >=3B mmusic mailing list
=0A= >=3B =3Bmmusic@ietf.org
=0A= >=3B =3Bhttps://www.i= etf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
=0A=
=0A=
=0A= _______________________________________________
=0A= mmusic mailing list
=0A= mmusic@ietf.org
=0A= = https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
= --_c3aa5e91-45e2-4f45-b90f-a53d32cdb849_--