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

I'm not really sure what to do here - given a key role of the chairs is largely to facilitate the discussions and meetings that Wg participants want to have,  guidance from participants of both MMUSIC and rtcweb is really important here. 

I agree that 

1) the items in EKR's email do look like the a bunch of the high runner items that need to be resolved soon 

2) the solutions of these problems are likely in to be mostly MMUSIC though, as Ted has pointed out, some amount of the requirements, architecture and other discussion can happen in rtcweb. 

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. 

Cullen

On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is a good agenda - for an MMUSIC WG interim (only day 3 has any RTCWEB items on it).
> 
> Since there is a notice requirement, can we get MMUSIC on board so the interim can actually take place?
> 
> On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:13, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Chairs,
>> 
>> I've spent some time thinking about the agenda for the interim, and
>> thought it might be helpful if I sent you a strawman based on the
>> items that are blocking progress in terms of implementation and
>> interoperability.
>> 
>> Note:
>> I am assuming 4 hours each day. The times have been selected with
>> the objective of giving us enough time to really resolve the
>> open issues. Honestly, we might even add more time for
>> the issues on day 1.
>> 
>> Hope this is helpful.
>> 
>> Day 1
>> 2:00    Bundle   [Holmberg]
>> 	Objective: select an approach and work out enough
>> 	details that the editors can work to produce a
>> 	suitable draft.
>> 
>> 	Drafts:
>> 	- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation
>> 	- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-one-rtp
>> 	- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-mmt-negotiation
>> 
>> 
>> 2:00    Multiple flow SDP representation [Jennings, Alvestrand]
>> 	Objective: decide on an architecture for large numbers
>> 	of similar streams (e.g., multiple video streams).
>> 
>> 	Drafts:
>> 	- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-msid
>> 	- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-mmusic-msid
>> 	- Do we have a "master" document for the single m-line case?
>> 	- Multiple m-lines doesn't have a document
>> 
>> 
>> Day 2
>> 1:30    Mapping stream/track label concepts SDP identifiers [Alvestrand]
>> 	Objective: determine requirements
>> 	
>> 	
>> 1:30    Trickle ICE open issues [Ivov(?), Uberti, Rescorla]
>> 	
>> 	- Starting checks
>> 	- Termination conditions
>> 	- Error handling
>> 	
>> 	Drafts:
>> 	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle		
>> 
>> 1:00    SDP for Datachannels open issues [Jesup, Loreto]
>> 	Objective: resolve open issues (post WGLC?)
>> 
>> 	Drafts:
>> 	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-02
>> 
>> Day 3
>> 1:00    Other recommended audio codecs [Roach]
>> 	
>> 	Objective: identify what other audio codecs we intend to
>> 	recommend.	
>> 
>> 1:00    Process WGLC comments on documents [authors]
>> 
>> 0:30    Other business
>> 
>> 0:30    Wrapup/next steps [Chairs]
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> -Ekr
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> <Mail Attachment.txt>_______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic