Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 5576 is da answah

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 26 November 2012 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 88D4921F86AE for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:44:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 SUwrjldSsV1m for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8933C21F86AC for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FDBE39E13F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:44:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RdtgWcQRcOMs for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:44:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.30.42.102] (c-f8f1e555.03-217-73746f1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [85.229.241.248]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59F6D39E01E for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:44:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50B31DD5.7070302@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:44:21 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <BLU002-W21780C8EDF047E1811F270D93540@phx.gbl>, , <265A48F7-9330-4415-9BF9-CAA29FE12BAE@vidyo.com>, , <50AD0BCB.9090508@alum.mit.edu>, <BLU002-W158A3D7EDFBFADEA151D8E935B0@phx.gbl>, <50AE1D75.1070100@alvestrand.no>, <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0428C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU002-W568799D8C49E68A19F7DE0935B0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU002-W568799D8C49E68A19F7DE0935B0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070504080009050803050103"
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 5576 is da answah
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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:44:26 -0000

On 11/22/2012 11:17 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Christer said:
>
> "My suggestion has been that "CLUE application specific data" (e.g. 
> spatial relationship information) goes into the CLUE channel, while 
> "transport data" (especially data which might be needed by 
> intermediaries etc) goes into SDP. "
>
> [BA]  That seems like a reasonable guideline to me.  Looking at 
> draft-ietf-clue-framework Section 6.1.1, many of the attributes other 
> than the "spatial relationship" ones (such as Point of Capture, Line 
> of Capture and Area of Capture) do seem like they can be handled in 
> SDP.  For example,  the max-send-ssrc:  and max-recv-ssrc: parameters 
> defined in draft-westerlund-mmusic-max-ssrc seem to communicate 
> similar information to Max Capture Encodings, and Encoding Group might 
> be taken care of via the a=ssrc-group construct in RFC 5576. Height, 
> Width and Framerate also can be handled in SDP (though IMHO the 
> negotiation mechanism in draft-lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection 
> needs work).
>
> [Harald]  The answer asks for *exactly* 720 by 576. The offerer has to 
> either send in that resolution or renegotiate.
> If a range was acceptable, the answerer should have indicated that 
> ([x=700:800,y=500:600]).
>
> [BA] Yes, but it seems clumsy for the receiver to indicate its 
> preferences without information on what the sender supports. In 
> draft-lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection, imageattr information only 
> seems to be supported in the answer, whereas in RFC 6236, the Offer 
> may include both send and receive information as described in Section 6.1:
> a=imageattr:PT send attr-list recv attr-list
> Including both send and receive information in the Offer seems more 
> likely to enable the negotiation to conclude in a single Offer/Answer 
> exchange.

So are you arguing that draft-lennox should specify "imageattr" with the 
"a=ssrc" construct as well as with the "a=remote-ssrc" construct? I 
could support that.

Sender's generic support can be indicated using 6236, but the sender 
might want to specify it per stream too.