Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Displaying side by side video streams draft-jennings-mmusic-adjacent-grouping

From: Peter Musgrave <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:12:00 -0400

Hi Cullen,

I'm glad to see work start on some of the details of multi-stream
audio and video.

In your grouping framework it would be useful to specify the full SDPs
in the examples. I assume streams not selected get inactive responses
at the m-line level etc.

Also, in the case where the answerer has more streams than the offerer
- would the answer indicate this (or would there be a subsequent
reINVITE)? How does the offeror indicate which subset of the answerers
streams it wishes to receive?

This is starting to feel like some of the work the TP group (hopefully
- soon to be chartered) could take on. I agree with you that using the
SDP grouping semantics is a good approach.

I am not sure if a simple left-to-right semantics will be flexible
enough. I use an app called synergy to allow my keyboard/mouse to
range over multiple computers and screens. It has a relative
descriptive framework: i.e. screen1 leftof screen2; screen3 above
screen 2 etc. This might be worth considering.

Is it worth cross-posting this to dispatch - due to it's link to TP
work under discussion there?

Regards,

Peter Musgrave

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:17:26 -0600

On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:12 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:

> in the examples.

ahhg, I totally agree and really have good intentions of doing this some day :-) 

> I assume streams not selected get inactive responses
> at the m-line level etc.

yep - no change to how that would work form existing SDP

> streams it wishes to receive?

Tried to clear that up a bit in the next version of the draft ... 

> SDP grouping semantics is a good approach.

As far as I understand the TP problems, they are taking on a more complex use case but I've always been a bit confused about the exact scope of that work. 

> screen 2 etc. This might be worth considering.

Agree - next version allows a support for a grid .... 

> work under discussion there?

Personally speaking, I love posts on list B of the form "here there is a discussion about X over on list A and you should go read it" but I hate cross posting because I end up with duplicate copies of messages in my folders for each WG . I read one and perhaps even reply to it then a week later find the same email in a different folder and am confused about if I had replied or read it. It's easy to say I should use better tools or ways of organizing my email but I've tried and for people reading over 10k messages per month, this is about the best I have figured out how to do so I hate cross posts for threads that lead to real discussion. Obviously there are pros / cons to cross posting and many IETF folks fall into both camps. I'm in the "Anything to never read something twice camp".