Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing

No,
I see it will be more flexible to allow some being looped back while some not.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "Hadriel Kaplan" <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Cc: <mmusic@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback@tools.ietf.org>; "Gonzalo Camarillo" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing

> 
> no
> 
> 
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:16 , Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> wrote:
> 
>> Howdy,
>> during IESG review of the media-loopback draft, a discussion arose regarding the language around indicating media-loopback support per media description (i.e., per m-line), in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
>> 
>> My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to indicate media-loopback; in other words it's an all-or-nothing in both the offer+answer, and either every media stream is looped back, or none are.  However the text currently doesn't make this clear, and it could be argued either way, with pro's/con's either way too; so I'd like the WG's consensus on whether it should in fact be an all-or-none approach, or not.
>> 
>> Please respond to this email by **Tuesday, December 4th** with a "YES" if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back, or "NO" if it should allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others are not.
>> 
>> For reference, the draft is here:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-24
>> 
>> -hadriel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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