[rtcweb] Where Plan A, B, and "no plan" discussions should happen

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy,

Several folks have asked for clarification on where plan A, plan B, and "no
plan" discussions should occur. Magnus and Cullen and I have not had much
chance to discuss it, but here is my take:

RTCWEB has made a request of MMUSIC for a standardized way to handle
multiple media flows (for large values of "multiple" in some cases).  Plan
A and Plan B propose specific approaches and syntax to resolve the
request.  Discussions of those approaches and syntax belong in MMUSIC, full
stop.

Discussions of whether we actually need a standardized way to handle that
belong in RTCWEB, because they are essentially an argument to the WG that
we can withdraw the request to MMUSIC and go forward using other pieces of
the WebRTC mechanics to resolve the problem.

Emil's draft has some elements which critique plan A and plan B, and a
proposal that falls into the "no need for a standard here" camp.  For
clarity's sake, it might be easiest if those were split.  The proposal that
a standard isn't needed could be submitted as an RTCWEB relevant draft
(draft-ivov-rtcweb-no-plan-needed, perhaps?).  The critique of Plan A and
Plan B could be submitted as an MMUSIC draft
(draft-ivov-mmusic-plan-a-b-considerations, perhaps?).

At this point, I do not see consensus to withdraw the request to MMUSIC
from RTCWEB, but, as I said, Magnus, Cullen, and I have not had much chance
to coordinate, so this is not a chair decision.

regards,

Ted Hardie