Re: [MMUSIC] Unified Plan for SDP Handling

On 17.07.13, 01:21, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> The app-id idea is useful for multiple reasons.  One reason similar
> RTP extensions are used today is to avoid having to parse the payload
> to figure out what the stream is (e.g. looking for parameter sets or
> SEI NAL units).  It is cleaner to solve this in as generic rather
> than a codec-specific way.  I see no conflict with no-plan;

+1

> in fact, I believe no plan suggested an RTP extension, no?

It did indeed.

Emil

> Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2013, at 4:38 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/13 15:28, Roni Even wrote:
>>> Adam, For correlation when the SSRC is not known in the SDP look
>>> at
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-even-mmusic-multiple-streams-02.txt
>>> and the option to use SDES and not only RTP header extension.
>>
>> Roni:
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. That's an interesting approach; however,
>> for RTCWEB at least, need a solution that also works with
>> DTLS-SRTP.
>
>
> Acronym collision: This uses RTCP Source Description packets, not SDP
> Security Descriptions.
>
> I think the (related) app-id approach described in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-even-mmusic-application-token-00.txt
> will also be of interest.
>
> -- Jonathan Lennox jonathan@vidyo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

-- 
https://jitsi.org