From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
Thread-Index: AQHNx1jQvSoC84ovvkqVvo+Zxh0CCw==
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:54:14 +0000
Message-ID: <2217C1EE-793D-498C-B604-8BAF604C2C86@acmepacket.com>
References: <A444ACE8-4EDD-48DC-86C8-7CCBB40173CE@acmepacket.com>
 <50ABCF23.9020605@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <50ABCF23.9020605@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1F46B966676B2347B1FB9C03E353B3F2@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mmusic@ietf.org>" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
Precedence: list

Are you asking for someone to defend/explain the advantages are for limitin=
g it, or just giving that as the rationale for your NO vote?
(I don't mean this in a negative way - I'm literally not sure if you're ask=
ing a question or being rhetorical)

-hadriel


On Nov 20, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> NO
>=20
> *Why* should the draft be limited this way if it need not be?
>=20
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
>=20
> On 11/20/12 1:16 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> Howdy,
>> during IESG review of the media-loopback draft, a discussion arose regar=
ding the language around indicating media-loopback support per media descri=
ption (i.e., per m-line), in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
>>=20
>> My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to ind=
icate media-loopback; in other words it's an all-or-nothing in both the off=
er+answer, and either every media stream is looped back, or none are.  Howe=
ver the text currently doesn't make this clear, and it could be argued eith=
er 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.
>>=20
>> Please respond to this email by **Tuesday, December 4th** with a "YES" i=
f the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back, or "NO" if it should a=
llow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others are not.
>>=20
>> For reference, the draft is here:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-24
>>=20
>> -hadriel
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic