Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for dealing with CNAMEs and MSIDs for synchronization

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 02/07/2013 08:22 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> Here's what I was trying to say at the microphone.
>>
>> 1. When two MSTracks are in the same MediaStream on the sending side:
>>   They must generate the same MSID in SDP and the same CNAME in RTP.
>>
>> 2. One the receiving side, any two tracks with the same MSID will appear
>> in
>> the same MediaStreamTrack.
>>
>
> Same _MediaStream_?

Yes. Doh.

>
>
>> 3. On the receiving side, any two RTP streams with the same CNAME will
>> be synchronized.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> My question is basically: what if the sender creates two MediaStreams for
> which all tracks have local sources (cam's, mike's), sends them to a peer,
> will the RTP streams for both MediaStreams have the same or different CNAME?
>
> I argued for that they should have the same.
>

Yes, I think this is a separate (and fraught) question. :)

-Ekr

>
>> 4. There are two ways for MSID and CNAME to be inconsistent.
>> - If MSID indicates synchronization but different CNAMEs are provided,
>>    synchronization is not attempted.
>> - If MSID indicates no synchronization but the same CNAME is used,
>>    then the tracks shall be synchronized, even though they appear in
>>    different MediaStreams.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>