Message-ID: <BLU002-W128C9125402F8F0BEE76FE793550@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="_b6c62602-72f7-46cd-8ebf-7e90bd192d21_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:56:41 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <50ABCF23.9020605@alum.mit.edu>
References: <A444ACE8-4EDD-48DC-86C8-7CCBB40173CE@acmepacket.com>,
 <50ABCF23.9020605@alum.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing
Precedence: list

--_b6c62602-72f7-46cd-8ebf-7e90bd192d21_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To Paul's point=2C there may be a scenario in which some m lines would be l=
ooped back and others would not.  For example=2C what if I want to do a loo=
pback test of audio/video but also want to be able to converse via RTT to d=
iscuss the results of the test in progress.  In that case the audio and vid=
eo m lines would be looped back but the text line would not be.=20

> Date: Tue=2C 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
>=20
> NO
>=20
> *Why* should the draft be limited this way if it need not be?
>=20
> 	Thanks=2C
> 	Paul
>=20
> On 11/20/12 1:16 PM=2C Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > Howdy=2C
> > during IESG review of the media-loopback draft=2C a discussion arose re=
garding the language around indicating media-loopback support per media des=
cription (i.e.=2C per m-line)=2C in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
> >
> > My interpretation/understanding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to in=
dicate media-loopback=3B in other words it's an all-or-nothing in both the =
offer+answer=2C and either every media stream is looped back=2C or none are=
.  However the text currently doesn't make this clear=2C and it could be ar=
gued either way=2C with pro's/con's either way too=3B so I'd like the WG's =
consensus on whether it should in fact be an all-or-none approach=2C or not=
.
> >
> > Please respond to this email by **Tuesday=2C December 4th** with a "YES=
" if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back=2C or "NO" if it sho=
uld allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others are n=
ot.
> >
> > For reference=2C 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
> >
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
 		 	   		  =

--_b6c62602-72f7-46cd-8ebf-7e90bd192d21_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>To Paul's point=2C there may be =
a scenario in which some m lines would be looped back and others would not.=
&nbsp=3B For example=2C 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.&nbsp=3B In that case the audio and video m lines would b=
e looped back but the text line would not be. <br><br><div><div id=3D"SkyDr=
ivePlaceholder"></div>&gt=3B Date: Tue=2C 20 Nov 2012 13:42:43 -0500<br>&gt=
=3B From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu<br>&gt=3B To: mmusic@ietf.org<br>&gt=3B Sub=
ject: Re: [MMUSIC] NEED WG CONSENSUS: media-loopback is all-or-nothing<br>&=
gt=3B <br>&gt=3B NO<br>&gt=3B <br>&gt=3B *Why* should the draft be limited =
this way if it need not be?<br>&gt=3B <br>&gt=3B 	Thanks=2C<br>&gt=3B 	Paul=
<br>&gt=3B <br>&gt=3B On 11/20/12 1:16 PM=2C Hadriel Kaplan wrote:<br>&gt=
=3B &gt=3B Howdy=2C<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B during IESG review of the media-loopba=
ck draft=2C a discussion arose regarding the language around indicating med=
ia-loopback support per media description (i.e.=2C per m-line)=2C in sectio=
ns 3.1 and 3.2.<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B My interpretation/underst=
anding was we were requiring ALL m-lines to indicate media-loopback=3B in o=
ther words it's an all-or-nothing in both the offer+answer=2C and either ev=
ery media stream is looped back=2C or none are.  However the text currently=
 doesn't make this clear=2C and it could be argued either way=2C with pro's=
/con's either way too=3B so I'd like the WG's consensus on whether it shoul=
d in fact be an all-or-none approach=2C or not.<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B<br>&gt=3B =
&gt=3B Please respond to this email by **Tuesday=2C December 4th** with a "=
YES" if the draft should mandate ALL media be looped-back=2C or "NO" if it =
should allow a hybrid approach of some streams being looped while others ar=
e not.<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B For reference=2C the draft is here=
:<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopb=
ack-24<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B -hadriel<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B<br>&gt=
=3B &gt=3B _______________________________________________<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B=
 mmusic mailing list<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B mmusic@ietf.org<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B http=
s://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic<br>&gt=3B &gt=3B<br>&gt=3B <br>&gt=
=3B _______________________________________________<br>&gt=3B mmusic mailin=
g list<br>&gt=3B mmusic@ietf.org<br>&gt=3B https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis=
tinfo/mmusic<br></div> 		 	   		  </div></body>
</html>=

--_b6c62602-72f7-46cd-8ebf-7e90bd192d21_--