Subject: Re: Ability To Synchronize Streams

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:41:05 -0500

It would definitely be easier to put it off.

One of the main reasons streams were introduced were for multimedia which
requires at least lip-synch.

My memory of Santiago was that streams in a context were synched by
definition.  I thought that was the main reason for streams.  Otherwise, we
could get rid of streams and just have each media stream in its own context
with a (synch=ContextID) parameter indicating the contexts that should be
synchronized.

Chip

At 10:09 AM 10/28/99 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>This is to remind you of an oversight arising out of our multimedia
>discussions last spring.  We need a way to indicate which streams are to be
>synchronized (e.g. synchronization of voice with video) on exit from the MG.
>My proposal was that such synchronization would be indicated at each
>termination by including a "synch=StreamId" property within one stream
>descriptor to point at another stream to which it should be bound.  On
>second thought, it may be that we actually want to do this at the context
>level, which means that the whole thing should be deferred for version 2
>like the bridging context property has been.
>
>Comments?
>
>Tom Taylor
>Advisor -- IPConnect Standards
>E-mail: [email-masked] (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
>Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961

Support NetAid!  http://www.netaid.org
--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
--------------------------------------------------