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

One more "NO" vote - I also don't see a reason to mandate such a 
restriction as it may limit the use cases.

-- Flemming

On 11/20/12 1:42 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> NO
>
> *Why* should the draft be limited this way if it need not be?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
> On 11/20/12 1:16 PM, Hadriel Kaplan 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
> .
>