Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Proposed Agenda for Interim

Flemming Andreasen <> Fri, 04 January 2013 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC70D21F8E57; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:51:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.792
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.806, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WenhmECbAJxK; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29E321F8E07; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:51:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=8311; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1357267869; x=1358477469; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=GeDz2+H6qbuFV3nFNdvSwXknIvOAV0Y1/XUZmx/kUio=; b=FyauE838ovbu03WN88JoHxfZccuuEHY7Y+PD2AROu+mi5i17sOIVx/br 72tD/UHkVRFdO87+NwKIUnXht16MJYSWZ7DcInxa8nk3vZYygeO4wIGhb v99gjERweOi1ikWoq7zfpWqz7unfaco9RD8e7lFiIXkNWVayeJSJWuqKV s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,406,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="158506525"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2013 02:51:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r042p8Gs001720; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 02:51:08 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:51:07 -0500
From: Flemming Andreasen <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <>
References: <> <BLU405-EAS355F89AD238C9FB48DFD14F93220@phx.gbl> <> <BLU002-W7BBB1FEC4D1BEEDF1498C93220@phx.gbl> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020306090106000302040102"
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Proposed Agenda for Interim
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: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 02:51:11 -0000

On 1/2/13 5:25 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Bernard Aboba 
> < <>> wrote:
>     Cullen said:
>     "3) if we are going to have an MMUSIC face to face interim
>     meeting, it would need AD approval and 4 weeks notices which puts
>     us very close do the deadline so this needs to get sort out real
>     soon. "
>     [BA] I see no particularly good reason why this can't happen
>     quickly.  In fact, why not schedule two MMUSIC interims, 4-6 weeks
>     apart from each other?  If travel is an issue, they can be
>     virtual.  EKR's issue list is a fine starting point, and there is
>     an informal IESG telechat tomorrow (3-Jan) as well as one on
>     10-Jan-2013.
> I'm not in principle opposed to "virtual" interims, but my general 
> feeling is
> that we should be using face-to-face time to cover the most important and
> intractable issues. ISTM that those are the ones that I listed in my 
> email.
> Accordingly, I don't think it makes sense to have virtual MMUSIC interims
> to discuss the important stuff and a F2F RTCWEB interim to discuss the
> rest...
While I agree it would be helpful with more face-to-face time, I don't 
believe in relying on this as a mechanism for making continuous 
progress. These types of meetings are generally most productive when 
coupled with regular interaction among a core set of people that 
represent the different points of view in a particular matter and hence 
I would suggest formation of one or more design teams on select topics 
with regular conference calls (we'll need dedicated volunteers for 
those) - of course the output of these design teams will still need to 
be discussed in the WG at large.

One particular area to start with on the bundle/mmt discussion for 
example is to look at how the different proposals handle all existing 
SDP parameters and attributes to see how important their different 
approach really is.


-- Flemming (as Individual)

> -Ekr
>     Ted's suggestion (to cover this in the RTCWEB interim) might do in
>     a pinch, but really, MMUSIC WG has to develop a sense of urgency
>     on this.  If things keep going as they have, by the time we get
>     published RFCs out of MMUSIC,  implementations will have been in
>     the field for years.
>     If MMUSIC were a Hollywood Celebrity, we'd be *way* past the time
>     for "tough love" and on the front page of the National Enquirer
>     for the Nth time.
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list