Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 27 May 2013 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 AB6BF21F95E7 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 05:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xwsXlvFc92EA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1ACB21F93BB for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 05:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7efb6d000007c26-32-51a356f66bf1
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 83.36.31782.6F653A15; Mon, 27 May 2013 14:52:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.167]) by ESESSHC003.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.27]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 27 May 2013 14:52:06 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org WG" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
Thread-Index: AQHOWtXocH/Y1zQW/EWt7TkWSefrJ5kY2NQAgAAiw8A=
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:52:05 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3799BC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <749DCA95-2D40-46B3-9A3D-E63356C7A2C1@csperkins.org> <1892A917-C408-4E8F-AB19-206ED508762C@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <1892A917-C408-4E8F-AB19-206ED508762C@csperkins.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre63sMWBBg3LzS2WvzzBaDF1+WMW ByaPaffvs3ksWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj1dN+poJ/nBULbm9maWD8wt7FyMkhIWAi 8f71B2YIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAocZJaZ0PwFLCAksYZR4d7G8i5GDg03AQqL7nzZIWETAV+Lq racsIGFhAWuJg3PYIcI2Eg3T/7NA2FYSM/samUBsFgFVic/rW9hAbF6g1sn7jjGCtAoJlEuc nSkHEuYUcJRYdGcx2BhGoGu+n1oD1sosIC5x68l8JogrBSSW7DkPdbGoxMvH/1hBxkgIKEos 75eDKNeRWLD7ExuErS2xbOFrZoitghInZz5hmcAoOgvJ1FlIWmYhaZmFpGUBI8sqRvbcxMyc 9HKjTYzAGDi45bfqDsY750QOMUpzsCiJ8+rxLg4UEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnV wJiUeeh40N6DvtO/hl4xD1Zk/HqV6ceDVaxy0XdZ5zyRdZkwre3qlKeLWRddnXB1rnGv6msT sX6tP2F3Al8LOwdnZzQWVm+p7XhgF93UXSJZ/Wut+rE93+wDG98eWaQpkmv/54ANX6f8fB6h p1dPfImYn6Qh+uFb5slphVsv37SuLZtj33Gn54cSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgA8+OhwTwIAAA==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
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, 27 May 2013 12:52:13 -0000

Hi,

>> There were a number of comments in the call last week, and on the list, about unique payload types in BUNDLE. I'd like to explore this further.
>> 
>> Case A: Within a single RTP session, I think we'd all agree that an offer that uses the same RTP payload type for two payload formats on a single m= line is problematic: 
>> 
>>   v=0
>>   o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.anywhere.com
>>   s=
>>   c=IN IP4 host.anywhere.com
>>   t=0 0
>>   m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96
>>   a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000
>>   a=rtpmap:96 G7291/16000
>> 
>> If this were done the receiver would have no way of distinguishing what payload format is meant by payload type 96. Accordingly, unique payload formats need to be used for each payload format.
>
> That should be "...unique payload types need to be used for each payload format" of course.

What if you have two m- lines, with identical encoding in both? Both represent the same payload format, don't they? :)

v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.anywhere.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.anywhere.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96
a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP ???
a=rtpmap:??? AMR-WB/16000

Regards,

Christer