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

Colin Perkins <> Mon, 27 May 2013 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AD721F8E9A for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.607
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UAIJgC1Hfl8i for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124F021F8C1A for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 11:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (port=39945 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Uh2Mj-0007yK-1m; Mon, 27 May 2013 19:41:53 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:41:52 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>, <> <> <> <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
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: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:41:58 -0000

On 27 May 2013, at 19:38, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 5/27/13 2:10 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> On 27 May 2013, at 18:55, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>>>>> v=0
>>>>>>> o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 s= c=IN IP4
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> Not sure I get your point. You can have two different payload types that map to the same payload format in a single RTP session, since
>>>>>> you can always distinguish what payload format is intended. You can't have the same payload type mapping to two different payload
>>>>>> formats in a single RTP session, since you can't then infer what payload format was meant.
>>>>> Please not that both PTs map to the SAME payload format :)
>>>> I thought I addressed that in my reply.
>>> I am not sure you did - at least I didn't get it :)
>>> Again, my understanding of what you said is that, for any payload format within an RTP session, the PT value has to be unique.
>> Correct.
> Now you're both confused. What you are trying to say is that for any PT value withing an RTP session the payload format must be unique.
> E.g., two different PTs may map to the same format, but one PT may not map to two different formats.
> But I continue to argue that we could relax that, as long as there is something else that selects which PT mapping to use.

Yes, but why?

>>> In the example above the same payload format, within the same RTP session, is used in two separate m- lines. But, I still can't use the same PT value for both m- lines, even if the payload format is the same, can I?
>> Why not? I don't see any problem mapping the same payload type to the exact same payload format in two different m= lines. Mapping the same payload type to two different payload formats is the problem.
> It depends. *If* you are trying to use the PT to associate packets to an m-line, then indeed you might need to use different PT values for the same payload format in order to accomplish that.

Sure, but no-one is arguing against that. The problem is using the same PT for different payload formats. 

Colin Perkins