RE: Separate proposal on layering/simulcast (was part of the "big proposal")

Peter said:

“If there isn't a really good reason to put it in scope, I'd suggest we leave it out.  But it may be worth it to leave the layerId as a string instead of an int because that would make it easier to change the scope later if we need to.”

[BA] I agree that “Multi-session transport” (e.g. MST as defined in RFC 6190) should be out of scope. “Multi-stream transport on a single session” should be in scope, though.  Some text (and probably some terminology) can be added to make this clear.

To be future-safe, I agree that it makes sense to leave layerId as a string.  However, we probably should modify (or maybe even delete) the text relating to global uniqueness, since that’s only required for MST applications.