Subject: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB inteirm meeting

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:41:29 -0800

Below is a proposed agenda which has been discussed among the RTCWEB
and MMUSIC chairs; comments welcome.

Ted Hardie

Day 1 (February 5th, 2013)

Multiple Flow SDP representation

       90 minutes: Framing discussion (Magnus is working on text)

      120 minutes: drafts discussion

      Objective: decide on architecture for large numbers of similar streams

SDP for Data channels

        60 minutes:  resolve open issues

Day 2 (February 6, 2013)

SDP Grouping (Bundle/MMT/one-rtp)

           60 Minutes: framing discussion

          120 Minutes:  drafts discussion

           Objective: select an approach and provide direction to editors

Mapping stream/track label concepts to SDP identifiers

           60 minutes

            Objective: determine requirements

Day 3: (February 7, 2013)

            Trickle ICE

           120 minutes

            Objective: review offer/answer semantic impact; establish
initiation, termination and error handling

            JSEP

             120 minutes

              Objective: review and resolve open issues with the document

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:11:09 +0100

Thanks for getting this out!

This is basically 2 days for grouping in SDP (with a slice off for data 
channels), and 1 day for trickle ICE and all the other issues in JSEP.

I would be happy if the chairs could update this draft agenda with links 
to the current drafts that pertain to each topic - in particular, that 
will give me some hints on what drafts I need to refresh before they 
expire; this discussion has been going on for quite some time!

                  Harald

On 01/14/2013 06:41 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:09:09 +0100

> channels), and 1 day for trickle ICE and all the other issues in JSEP.

FWIW, we will be submitting a new trickle ICE revision in the following
days.

Incidentally, are there going to be arrangements for remote
participation/presentation?

Emil

--sent from my mobile

> I would be happy if the chairs could update this draft agenda with
> links to the current drafts that pertain to each topic - in particular,
> that will give me some hints on what drafts I need to refresh before
> they expire; this discussion has been going on for quite some time!
>
>                  Harald
>
>

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:49:04 +0200

Hi,
I am not sure what will be discussed in multiple flow SDP representation and
Mapping stream/track label concepts to SDP identifiers. Are there drafts or
is it an open discussion.
What about the relation of these two topics to CLUE?

Thanks
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ted Hardie
Sent: 14 January, 2013 7:41 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Cullen Jennings; Magnus Westerlund; Ari Keränen; Gonzalo Camarillo;
Flemming Andreasen
Subject: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB inteirm
meeting

Below is a proposed agenda which has been discussed among the RTCWEB and
MMUSIC chairs; comments welcome.

Ted Hardie

SDP for Data channels

Day 2 (February 6, 2013)

           60 minutes

            Trickle ICE

           120 minutes

            JSEP

             120 minutes

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:16:07 +0100

> I am not sure what will be discussed in multiple flow SDP representation

This is a very fundamental choice of how SDP is going to deal with RTP
sessions that include multiple media streams, i.e. SSRCs carrying
different media sources and negotiation of media stream related
information and parameters.

I understand some drafts are under preparation here.

This is definitely something that will impact CLUE also.

> is it an open discussion.

This is more an WebRTC focused issues, but it has clearly overlap with
the relations discussion on how you identify media sources, different
encodings of the same media stream (in simulcast and scalable coding)
their repair streams all the way up to WebRTC specific concepts of
MediaStream.

For this my colleagues and I are preparing a draft. I don't expect it to
be available before second half of next week.

I think this is relevant for CLUE in the perspective of trying to
understand what is common abstractions and what is not.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Andrew Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:55:08 +0000

I think it would be better if the JSEP discussion could take place on the either day 1 or day 2 so there is some time for offline discussion before the end of the of the meeting. I think there are some important concerns here which we need to reach resolution on.

What are the times for the start and end schedule each day?

Adding up the hours it seems that it should be possible to fit more into Day 1 and Day 2 and still only do a full "IETF work day".

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:49 AM
To: 'Ted Hardie'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Magnus Westerlund'; 'Ari Keränen'; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'; 'Flemming Andreasen'
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB inteirm meeting

Hi,
I am not sure what will be discussed in multiple flow SDP representation and Mapping stream/track label concepts to SDP identifiers. Are there drafts or is it an open discussion.
What about the relation of these two topics to CLUE?

Thanks
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 14 January, 2013 7:41 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Cullen Jennings; Magnus Westerlund; Ari Keränen; Gonzalo Camarillo; Flemming Andreasen
Subject: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB inteirm meeting

Below is a proposed agenda which has been discussed among the RTCWEB and MMUSIC chairs; comments welcome.

Ted Hardie

SDP for Data channels

Day 2 (February 6, 2013)

           60 minutes

            Trickle ICE

           120 minutes

            Objective: review offer/answer semantic impact; establish initiation, termination and error handling

            JSEP

             120 minutes

              Objective: review and resolve open issues with the document _______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:41:54 +0200

Hi Magnus,
My concern is that it is not easy to provide a proposal to a subject that is
not clear. I also have views about these topics but seeing no requirements
or use cases it is difficult to write a draft.
I believe that the actual syntax depends on the bundle decision so any work
now need to assume a bundle architecture.
Are there any requirements for a solution even if we are looking for a new
way or to leverage existing mechanisms like RFC 5576.

I will try to write something based on the CLUE RTP mapping draft we are
discussing that tries to address a similar problem as far as I understand.

BTW: will these drafts be MMUSIC drafts or RTCweb?

Thanks
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 22 January, 2013 10:16 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'Ted Hardie'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Ari
Keränen'; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'; 'Flemming Andreasen'
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposed agenda for the joint MMUSIC/RTCWEB
inteirmmeeting

This is a very fundamental choice of how SDP is going to deal with RTP
sessions that include multiple media streams, i.e. SSRCs carrying different
media sources and negotiation of media stream related information and
parameters.

> Mapping stream/track label concepts to SDP identifiers. Are there 
> drafts or is it an open discussion.

This is more an WebRTC focused issues, but it has clearly overlap with the
relations discussion on how you identify media sources, different encodings
of the same media stream (in simulcast and scalable coding) their repair
streams all the way up to WebRTC specific concepts of MediaStream.

For this my colleagues and I are preparing a draft. I don't expect it to be
available before second half of next week.

I think this is relevant for CLUE in the perspective of trying to understand
what is common abstractions and what is not.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:01:14 +0100

> now need to assume a bundle architecture.

And I think the question of how one deals with multiple media streams in
an RTP session is an important input into the BUNDLE discussion.

> way or to leverage existing mechanisms like RFC 5576.

To my understanding what we are trying to achieve is making progress
into three different subjects.

1) How multiple media streams are handled in SDP. I think there exist
two proposal from the MMUSIC discussion:
  A) One media description per RTP session and media type. Each media
     stream are identified and provided with additional information
     using stream specific parameters.

  B) Each media description is a media stream and RTP sessions are then
     expressed as Bundle of media descriptions.

2) How "Bundle" is going to be done. Which of the three proposals do we
   really believe in. Note that direction of 1) will affect how commonly
   required the usage of "Bundle" will be. Thus affect the trade-off
   concerns.

3) What is common relations exist between concepts in WebRTC, CLUE and
other multi-media communication contexts that needs to be identified and
signalled and at what scopes. This influences the solution for
MediaStream identities, our SRCNAME proposal in AVTEXT and CLUE work.
There are a number of commonalities here that should be considered.

> discussing that tries to address a similar problem as far as I understand.

Please do, the more informed everyone is, the better.

> BTW: will these drafts be MMUSIC drafts or RTCweb?

I don't know . I think ours is likely MMUSIC. I can't answer for the
other contributions I expect. I guess the important is that all
contributions are announced to the relevant WGs.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:18:45 +0200

Hi Magnus,
Thanks, I think that the first subject is what we were also discussing in
CLUE when looking at RTP mapping and we considered the also the individual
drafts on maxssrc, and srcname.
As for the two options I am not sure that we must chose. The first one "A"
is the current practice and I agree it is under specified today.
The second on "B" depends on how we define bundle. Looking at option "B" was
suggested also for RTP mapping in CLUE (for example with regards to
simulcast)

Roni 

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 22 January, 2013 1:01 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'Ted Hardie'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Ari

On 2013-01-22 11:41, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> My concern is that it is not easy to provide a proposal to a subject 
> that is not clear. I also have views about these topics but seeing no 
> requirements or use cases it is difficult to write a draft.
> I believe that the actual syntax depends on the bundle decision so any 
> work now need to assume a bundle architecture.

And I think the question of how one deals with multiple media streams in an
RTP session is an important input into the BUNDLE discussion.

> Are there any requirements for a solution even if we are looking for a 
> new way or to leverage existing mechanisms like RFC 5576.

To my understanding what we are trying to achieve is making progress into
three different subjects.

1) How multiple media streams are handled in SDP. I think there exist two
proposal from the MMUSIC discussion:
  A) One media description per RTP session and media type. Each media
     stream are identified and provided with additional information
     using stream specific parameters.

3) What is common relations exist between concepts in WebRTC, CLUE and other
multi-media communication contexts that needs to be identified and signalled
and at what scopes. This influences the solution for MediaStream identities,
our SRCNAME proposal in AVTEXT and CLUE work.
There are a number of commonalities here that should be considered.

> 
> I will try to write something based on the CLUE RTP mapping draft we 
> are discussing that tries to address a similar problem as far as I
understand.

> BTW: will these drafts be MMUSIC drafts or RTCweb?

I don't know . I think ours is likely MMUSIC. I can't answer for the other
contributions I expect. I guess the important is that all contributions are
announced to the relevant WGs.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund