Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

No. It just means that you cannot have two different codecs with the same PT on the same m line (without Bundle) or in any m-line (with Bundle).  

On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:11 PM, "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Emil,
> My understanding is that you propose to de-multiplex by the pt number so you
> cannot have two rtp streams with the same payload type number
> Roni
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Emil Ivov [mailto:emcho@jitsi.org]
>> Sent: 03 June, 2013 1:46 PM
>> To: Roni Even
>> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - SDP offer/answer clarification
>> 
>> Hey Roni,
>> 
>> On 03.06.13, 13:29, Roni Even wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I read the draft and the email thread and I think I have similar
>>> questions to the ones Cullen made.
>>> My understanding was that the proposal is to  do one SDP offer/ answer
>>> exchange  and add remove streams using other means (not specified)
>> 
>> Yes, this is exactly it.
>> 
>>> I looked at the offer example is section 3 and it has
>>> 
>>> a=max-send-ssrc:{*:1}                      // declaring maximum
>>>    a=max-recv-ssrc:{*:4}                     // number of SSRCs
>>> 
>>> I have some clarifying questions?
>>> 
>>> 1. Is the proposal to always offer max-send-ssrc=1?
>>> 
>>> 2. What is the answer in this case can it be max-send-ssrc=4?
>> 
>> The max-ssrc in the SDP was just an example for capabilities that the
> offerer
>> could add to SDP (could be useful for mobile devices for example). It is
> by no
>> means essential to the approach.
>> 
>>> 3. If max-send-ssrc >1 in the answer and the m-line has, for example,
>>> support for H.264 and VP8 with max-send-ssrc=2  and de-multiplexing is
>>> based on pt number, it will require four pt in the m-line since there
>>> can be two
>>> VP8 or two H.264 RTP streams
>>> 
>>>    m=video 5002 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 99 100
>>>    a=mid:video
>>>    a=rtcp-mux
>>>    a=rtpmap:97 VP8/90000
>>>    a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
>>>    a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000
>>>    a=rtpmap:100 H264/90000
>>> Is my understanding correct?
>> 
>> Can you help me understand why you need the PT duplication? Is this just
> so
>> that you could understand distinguish between two sources? If so, then it
>> wouldn't be necessary.
>> 
>> With No Plan you would just send:
>> 
>>      m=video 5002 RTP/SAVPF 97 99
>>      a=mid:video
>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>      a=rtpmap:97 VP8/90000
>>      a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000
>> 
>> If then you want to have one of the VP8 streams rendered on the left
> screen
>> and the other on the right, you will add this in application-specific
> signalling. A
>> web application could do this like this:
>> 
>> {
>>     "leftSSRC": "1234",
>>     "rightSSRC": "5678"
>> }
>> 
>> An WebRTC-to-SIP gateway could transform this into SDP or whatever that
>> target devices need.
>> 
>> Does this answer your question?
>> 
>> Emil
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Roni
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Emil Ivov
>>>> Sent: 29 May, 2013 10:00 PM
>>>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [rtcweb] No Plan
>>>> 
>>>> Hey all,
>>>> 
>>>> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many
>>>> others that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to
> investigate a
>>>> negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a
> little
>>> bit
>>>> less.
>>>> 
>>>> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
>>>> 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
>>>> 
>>>> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the
> intricacies
>>> of
>>>> multi-source scenarios to application-specific signalling, with
>>> potentially a
>>>> little help from RTP.
>>>> 
>>>> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the
>>> interoperability
>>>> requirements that concerned them can still be met with "no plan". Of
>>> course
>>>> they would have to be addressed by application-specific signalling
> and/or
>>>> signalling gateways.
>>>> 
>>>> Comments are welcome!
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Emil
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> https://jitsi.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
>> --
>> https://jitsi.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb