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

To Paul's point, there may be a scenario in which some m lines would be looped back and others would not.  For example, what if I want to do a loopback test of audio/video but also want to be able to converse via RTT to discuss the results of the test in progress.  In that case the audio and video m lines would be looped back but the text line would not be. 

> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:42:43 -0500
> From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
> To: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
> 
> 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