Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] draft-li-mmusic-fec-grouping-01 as a WG item?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:30 +0300

What is the proposal:
- adopt this I-D as is just for finishing to standards track RFC?
- adopt the work item on ULP which comes with withis draft?
- adopt a work item on FEC (session description/initiation) which
includes this draft with hooks for other related work in MMUSIC (e.g.
FEC-BB)?

I have no objections to taking the item into MMUSIC as ULP specific. It
would be good to see the authors' proposal as to how and whether it
relates to the other active FEC work. (As, I guess, a good number of the
MMUSIC group probably haven't been deeply exposed to ULP or FEC).

Cheers, Rod.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Colin Perkins
>Sent: 16 September, 2005 13:52
>To: mmusic (E-mail)
>Cc: Magnus Westerlund
>Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-li-mmusic-fec-grouping-01 as a WG item?
>
>On 15 Sep 2005, at 12:54, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> A new version of this draft become available yesterday. I have 
>> reviewed the few pages and I think this is a good idea. I would like 
>> to request that MMUSIC adopts it as an WG item to help AVT complete 
>> the work on ULP
>
>Are there any comments or objections on this proposal from the group?  
>Please respond by 23rd September so the chairs can gauge opinion.
>
>Colin
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmusic mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:23:51 +0200

> - adopt this I-D as is just for finishing to standards track RFC?

Yes, adopt the draft as it is and progress it to proposed standard. 
However it needs to be useable by the AVT ULP wg draft, otherwise it 
defeats the whole purpose.

As I see it the draft shall primarily resolve the issue for ULP 
signalling, which I think the current technical solution does. Secondly 
it should be possible to use for future mechanism as long as it fit. 
However as it is difficult to predict the future there are no 
guarantees. The "FEC" grouping would work if the only function a future 
solution require is to indicate that two or more m= lines are related as 
being source and repair material to each other.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:44:22 +0100

On 21 Sep 2005, at 13:23, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> However it needs to be useable by the AVT ULP wg draft, otherwise  
> it defeats the whole purpose.
>
> signalling, which I think the current technical solution does.  
> Secondly it should be possible to use for future mechanism as long  
> as it fit. However as it is difficult to predict the future there  
> are no guarantees. The "FEC" grouping would work if the only  
> function a future solution require is to indicate that two or more  
> m= lines are related as being source and repair material to each  
> other.

There don't seem to be any significant objections, and this draft is  
within the scope of our charter. Accordingly, the next version should  
be submitted as an MMUSIC working group draft (as draft-ietf-mmusic- 
fec-grouping-00.txt). The comments Magnus makes above should be  
considered going forward: we have several FEC proposals under  
consideration, and we should carefully consider how general we  
attempt to make this solution.

Colin