- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:29:26 -0800
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, mmusic@ietf.org, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<,public-webrtc@w3.org>," <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "<,rtcweb@ietf.org>," <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
- Message-ID: <CABkgnnXyyX9jbjaExVh9J9SLnRE=soqNfvfwX+N6bj4-5ikW8g@mail.gmail.com>
If there is a way to make this happen, that would be good. If not, then I think the only realistic option available to rtcweb would be to drop bundle, etc... That wouldn't be popular. On Dec 10, 2012 5:19 PM, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > I feel like the priorities here are kind of confused. > > It seems to me that the purpose of having a physical interim is to resolve > issues that are hard to resolve on the list or teleconferences. As I > mentioned > earlier, the SDP issues are the most important to resolve now and have > also proven to be among the most intractable. How does it make sense > to try to resolve those at a "virtual" interim while having people fly > to a "physical" interim for three days? > > I would strongly encourage the chairs to figure out how to have at least > one of the days of this interim devoted solely to resolving the SDP > issues (really, my preference would be to take these issues one at > a time and do nothing else until they are resolved!). I'm not expert > enough at the RAI WG mechanics to know what's required, so perhaps > this requires making this also an MMUSIC interim or a mini-RAI interim, > but if so that's what we should do, even if it means we need to reschedule > or move it. > > Best, > -Ekr > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:16 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) < >> keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> This is not just MMUSIC, there are bits of AVTCORE and AVTEXT >>> responsibility in there as well. >>> >>> And I don't see how you can suddenly extend the interim of RTCWEB to the >>> scope of other working groups, without even having a discussion with all >>> the relevant chairs. >>> >>> >> That's not how I read the overall sentiment--people are simply saying >> that they need this work done and are willing to put in the effort to get >> it done. It would, in fact, be ideal if some of the MMUSIC questions were >> resolve *before* an RTCWEB/WEBRTC interim, as we can then work through what >> is decided. >> >> Put another way, I take it as encouragement to MMUSIC folks that they >> would find a January virtual interim very well received/attended. >> >> Ted >> >> >> >>> I'd further note that Jonathan Lennox has an action (with the support of >>> quite a number of other people) to produce an internet draft on trying to >>> sort out the terminology concents that exist within RTP at the moment. This >>> would be the basis for progressing a number of these issues. That would >>> probably have to be an RAI wide draft. >>> >>> There has been some progress on this - maybe Jonathan can report on >>> where this now is. I know he was waiting on volunteers for some of the >>> sections and on input from others where volunteers already existed. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf >>> > Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy) >>> > Sent: 09 December 2012 00:20 >>> > To: Eric Rescorla >>> > Cc: <rtcweb@ietf.org>; mmusic WG; <public-webrtc@w3.org> >>> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] SDP work needed for WebRTC stuff >>> > >>> > >>> > On Dec 8, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > +rtcweb >>> > > >>> > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) >>> > <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I was looking over everything that needs to be completed to finish a >>> > fist cut of the WebRTC related work. There are a handful of big SDP >>> > problems that are currently blocking some of the WebRTC work and I'd >>> like >>> > to figure out how to make some progress on them. >>> > > >>> > > Let me loosely characterize them as >>> > > >>> > > 1) If we have several video streams, how do theses map up to 1 or >>> more m >>> > lines. >>> > > >>> > > 2) if we are doing port multiplexing, what does the SDP look like >>> (the >>> > bundle problem) >>> > > >>> > > 3) How do we map the RTCWeb track and stream label concepts to >>> > identifiers in SDP >>> > > >>> > > 3) SDP for application running over SCTP/DTLS >>> > > >>> > > I don't want to speak for all the various chairs but I am under the >>> > impression that most of chairs of related groups in W3C and IETF >>> believe >>> > these are issues that need to be resolved primarily in the MMUSIC WG >>> and >>> > that they impact both WebRTC and CLUE as well as the general long term >>> use >>> > of SDP in SIP and other protocols. >>> > > >>> > > I'd like to get some discussion going on how we can make some >>> progress >>> > on these. I don't think we are going to solve these in 20 minutes of >>> > discussion at an IETF meeting so I think we probably need some interim >>> > (virtual or face to face) to sort this out. >>> > > >>> > > Thoughts? >>> > > >>> > > Wow, I'm totally confused here. >>> > > >>> > > I had assumed that the SDP-related issues were going to be the main >>> > > topics at the WebRTC/RTCWEB interim in January. Is that not the case? >>> > >>> > So far the interim was only talking about being a WebRTC & RTCWeb so >>> this >>> > SDP stuff would be out of scope. Perhaps it would be better to have >>> some >>> > of the time for mmusic topics? >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > IMO the lack of clarity around how to encode various media >>> > > configurations into SDP is the major thing blocking progress here. In >>> > > particular, Firefox has opted not to implement multiplexing of media >>> > > streams over the same transport flow (whether of the bundle or >>> > > multiple m-line variety) until the SDP for it is well-defined. The >>> > > same thing applies to the question of how to map multiple m-lines to >>> > > incoming MediaStreams/Tracks. >>> > > >>> > > We really need to cover these issues in the interim. >>> > > >>> > > -Ekr >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > mmusic mailing list >>> > mmusic@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mmusic mailing list >>> mmusic@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 01:29:57 UTC