Subject: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC Draft Agenda for IETF 86

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:22:07 -0500

The MMUSIC draft agenda for IETF 86 has been posted at:

     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/agenda/mmusic/

Please take a look and let us know if you have any questions or comments.

Thanks

     Ari & Flemming

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:53:47 -0600

I think it would be much clearer and more accurate if you would
separate out the documents under the "RTCWEB related drafts" into
those that are more general multi-stream related documents and those
that are RTCWEB specific - e.g., draft-jennings-rtcweb-plan-01 is
clearly an RTCWEB related draft. Whereas, many of the other drafts are
proposing solutions that might well be useful for other applications
such as CLUE.  I think it's really important that the MMUSIC WG keeps
in mind that RTCWEB requirements are not the only ones that need to be
considered in the context of the multi-stream work.

Thanks,
Mary

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:34:09 -0800

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> clearly an RTCWEB related draft.

Actually, that document says this:

   "The requirements listed here are a collection of requirements that
   have come from WebRTC, CLUE, and the general community that uses RTP
   for interactive communications based on Offer/Answer."

So filename may not be the perfect indicator of author intent.

Ted

> Whereas, many of the other drafts are

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:01:51 -0800

> So filename may not be the perfect indicator of author intent.

plan is pretty much a grab bag list of things so a bunch of it might relate to all things using RTP/SDP while others are more or less rtcweb specific and at lest one is probably only specific to CLUE. It's hard to name.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:21:26 -0600

> So filename may not be the perfect indicator of author intent.
[MB] Yeah - I had just assumed that was rtcweb only stuff.  But, that
just re-enforces my point that I don't believe this section should be
referenced as "RTCWEB related drafts" - either include CLUE in the
header or make the topic more general. I actually prefer the former as
I think it's really important for more of the CLUE participants to get
engaged in these discussions and understand that the decisions in
MMUSIC need CLUE input and may impact the overall CLUE solution. [/MB]