Subject: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:20:46 +0300

Hi all,

Given the guidance from the RTCWEB WG chairs that the "no-plan" 
discussion should essentially happen at the RTCWEB WG, the MMUSIC 
interim meeting on June 17th will be focused on Plan A and Plan B. The 
goal of the meeting is to clarify what are the two different plans, what 
are their key differences and merits, and how can we select one to move 
forward with.

Here's the draft agenda:

7:00 – 7:10 Agenda bash & Note takers
7:10 – 8:10 Plan A Presentation
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a-00
  (also http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add-00)
8:10 – 9:10 Plan B Presentation
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00
9:10 – 9:50 Discussion on preferred approach
9:50 – 10:00 Wrap-Up & Next Steps

Note: All Times are Pacific Daylight Time (PDT)

The WebEx information for joining the meeting is available here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11488.html

Regards,
Ari & Flemming (MMUSIC co-chairs)

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:02:10 +0200

On 14.06.13, 20:20, Ari Keränen wrote:
> interim meeting on June 17th will be focused on Plan A and Plan B.

I assume this implies that MMUSIC considers it entirely appropriate to 
use SDP for signalling multiple streams the way No Plan suggests (i.e. 
one m= line can carry as many RTP flows as it likes). So much so, that 
no further discussion is necessary on the subject.

Could you please confirm that I am reading this properly?

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:10:04 +0300

> Could you please confirm that I am reading this properly?

This means that the interim time should be used mainly to discuss plan A 
vs plan B merits, not whether RTCWEB should use A/B, or no-plan.

Cheers,
Ari

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:33:38 +0200

> vs plan B merits, not whether RTCWEB should use A/B, or no-plan.

Sure. I get this and I find it very reasonable.

However, just as Plans A and B, No Plan says: here's an SDP that you can 
use when doing multiple streams.

So, I just want to confirm that we will not be discussing the SDP sides 
of the proposal in No Plan because they make perfect sense from an 
MMUSIC point of view and no discussion is really necessary. It'll be up 
to other working groups to decide whether they'd like to use that 
particular (and valid) approach.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:51:37 -0500

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Ari Keränen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This means that the interim time should be used mainly to discuss plan A vs
> plan B merits, not whether RTCWEB should use A/B, or no-plan.
[MB] So what happens if RTCWEB decides that they prefer "no-plan"?  In
that case, MMUSIC will have wasted their time deciding A versus B
since there aren't hard requirements from other potential users of
this SDP based multi-stream signaling mechanism.  CLUE isn't quite
there yet. Now, it's possible either A or B would be okay, but that's
not a given right now.

I certainly understand the frustration of the chairs in trying to
manage this work since a lot of relevant discussion has been on the
RTCWEB WG mailing list.  And, I do certainly agree that you all do
have a milestone for this work, I just think this meeting is premature
until there is indeed consensus in the RTCWEB WG that no plan is off
the table and the CLUE WG is a point that it's clear how A versus B
fit into their solution and whether possibly a plan C might be more
optimal. [/MB]
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:00:45 -0400

Hi Emil

Per some of the previous discussion threads (see e.g. 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11019.html), 
there is clearly some ambiguity around exactly what an m-line conveys, 
both with and without bundle. This lack of clarity potentially affects 
all of the different plan proposals as well as as 4566bis, and as such 
is an entirely reasonable discussion to have in MMUSIC. To the extent 
that resolution of this impacts progress on the Plan A versus Plan B 
discussion, it is also an appropropriate discussion to have next week.

What is not appropriate at this time however is to turn that into a 
discussion of choosing "no plan" for RTCWeb since MMUSIC cannot (and 
should not) make that decision (as clarified by the RTCWeb chairs as well).

Thanks

-- Flemming

On 6/14/13 3:33 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> However, just as Plans A and B, No Plan says: here's an SDP that you 
> can use when doing multiple streams.
>
> So, I just want to confirm that we will not be discussing the SDP 
> sides of the proposal in No Plan because they make perfect sense from 
> an MMUSIC point of view and no discussion is really necessary. It'll 
> be up to other working groups to decide whether they'd like to use 
> that particular (and valid) approach.
>
> Emil
>
>

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:07:54 -0400

On 6/14/13 3:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> this SDP based multi-stream signaling mechanism.
We are knee-deep in here already, so an extra 3 hour conference call 
seems like a small price to pay for potentially making progress (and at 
the very least get more clarity on the Plan A and Plan B proposals based 
on "higher than e-mail bandwidth" presentation and discussion)

>   CLUE isn't quite
The downside seems limited, and we know there is a lot of interest in 
trying to make progress.

Thanks

-- Flemming

> .

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:24:09 -0700

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>wrote:

> O
So, RTCWEB has made a request to MMUSIC and the choice of plan A or plan B
is part of the effort to resolve that request.  RTCWEB has not withdrawn
that request.  It is always possible that work coming into one IETF working
group from another may be overcome by events, but that's not our current
state.

Please, let's move forward with the effort to resolve this, rather than
borrowing trouble.

thanks,

Ted

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:53:25 +0200

Hey Flemming,

On 14.06.13, 22:00, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> is an entirely reasonable discussion to have in MMUSIC.

OK, so doesn't this mean all plans should be given equal time to discuss 
their take on this issue?

> To the extent

Sorry, I am confused again. No Plan, Plan A and Plan B demonstrate 
versions of SDP that can be used in multi-stream scenarios. Yet, for 
some reason we will only be discussing the validity of Plan A and Plan 
B's approaches.

Could you please explain why that is?

The only explanation I could find was that No Plan's SDP usage was too 
obvious and valid and there wasn't anything to discuss about it.

Just to be clear: we have been using a No Plan-like approach for Jitsi 
video conferencing for quite a long time now. I believe other popular 
vendors of conferencing solutions have been doing the same.

Cheers,
Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:15:55 -0400

On 6/14/13 4:53 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> OK, so doesn't this mean all plans should be given equal time to 
> discuss their take on this issue?
>
I don't believe it is or should be a plan-specific discussion, so no.

> Could you please explain why that is?
Because "no plan" doesn't seem to be asking MMUSIC to do anything and 
when we clarified with the RTCWeb chairs whether "no plan" should be in 
scope for the MMUSIC interim meeting discussion the answer was no; that 
part of the discussion belongs in RTCWeb. If you want to argue against 
that, you need to do so on the RTCWeb list with the RTCWeb chairs.

> vendors of conferencing solutions have been doing the same.

Ok. This is all part of an entirely reasonable discussion to have, but 
currently, it should be taking place on the RTCWeb mailing list. As 
noted previously (by Ted I believe) it may also be helpful to split the 
"no plan" draft in two; an MMUSIC specific portion with 
asks/clarifications for MMUSIC and an RTCWeb specific part.

Thanks

-- Flemming

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:54:23 +0200

> I don't believe it is or should be a plan-specific discussion, so no.

Could we then maybe have that discussion scheduled in the agenda, 
please? Right now it seems to only contain points specific to Plan A or 
Plan B.

> Because "no plan" doesn't seem to be asking MMUSIC to do anything

The thing that No Plan really needs from MMUSIC is to validate the way 
it uses m= lines for multiple RTP flows. If we can make sure that this 
is discussed (independently of how streams will be accepted and 
rejected) then I am fine.

Thanks,
Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:39:45 +0200

Not on A vs B, but on the agenda:

This time allocation is:

- 20 mins administrativia
- 120 mins presentation
- 40 mins discussion

I do not think this is a wise allocation. It maximizes the time given to 
plan "owners" to present their viewpoints, and minimizes the time 
avaliable for people who do not "own a plan" to present a viewpoint.
People who come to the meeting SHOULD have read the drafts beforehand. 
If not, listening to 60 mins of presentation won't make them understand 
the issues.

I would suggest instead:

- 10 min administrativia (agenda bash)
- 15 min Plan A presentation
- 15 min Plan A clarification questions
- 15 min Plan B presentation
- 15 min Plan B clarification questions
- 10 min presentaton on "what questions do we need to answer" (by the 
chairs)
- 90 min discussion on answering the questions (structured by the chairs)
- 10 min administrativia (wrapup)

(and yes, this is enough time that one could fit in a slot for "no plan" 
too)

(I'm HOPING that the draft agenda is intended to show "presentation and 
discussion" for each draft, not what the words on the agenda currently 
say. But if not, I'm considering whether calling in 2 hours late is a 
reasonable option.)

On 06/14/2013 08:20 PM, Ari Keränen wrote:
> goal of the meeting is to clarify what are the two different plans, 
> what are their key differences and merits, and how can we select one 
> to move forward with.
>
> Here's the draft agenda:
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 10:11:09 -0400

+1

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:16:43 -0700

+1

---

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:51:26 +0000

+1

> >> I do not think this is a wise allocation. It maximizes the time given
> >> to plan "owners" to present their viewpoints, and minimizes the time
> >> If not, listening to 60 mins of presentation won't make them
> >> understand the issues.
> >>
> >> I would suggest instead:
> >>
> >> (I'm HOPING that the draft agenda is intended to show "presentation
> >> and discussion" for each draft, not what the words on the agenda
> >> currently say. But if not, I'm considering whether calling in 2 hours
> >> late is a reasonable option.)
> >>
> >>
> >>> The goal of the meeting is to clarify what are the two different
> >>> plans, what are their key differences and merits, and how can we
> >>> select one to move forward with.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the draft agenda:
> >>>
> >>> (also
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add-00)

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:22:43 -0500

An excellent suggestion.  I had been putting together an email on just
this topic as it wasn't all clear to me what the objectives were and
who was really leading the meeting and discussions.

Mary.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> plan "owners" to present their viewpoints, and minimizes the time avaliable
> for people who do not "own a plan" to present a viewpoint.
> People who come to the meeting SHOULD have read the drafts beforehand. If
> not, listening to 60 mins of presentation won't make them understand the
> issues.
>
> I would suggest instead:
>
> discussion" for each draft, not what the words on the agenda currently say.
> But if not, I'm considering whether calling in 2 hours late is a reasonable
> option.)
>
>
>
>> Given the guidance from the RTCWEB WG chairs that the "no-plan" discussion
>> should essentially happen at the RTCWEB WG, the MMUSIC interim meeting on
>> June 17th will be focused on Plan A and Plan B. The goal of the meeting is
>> to clarify what are the two different plans, what are their key differences
>> and merits, and how can we select one to move forward with.
>>
>> Here's the draft agenda:
>>

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:47:03 -0400

Our expectation is that there will be many questions and comments on 
each of the plan presentations as we go through them, hence the 1 hour 
allocation for each suggested. Furthermore, we wanted to ensure that 
each plan got it's fair share of time allocated to discussion. The 
remaining 40 mins were intended to be more open-ended discussion based 
on what we have heard and discussed for each plan by then.

Based on the above, please let us know if folks still feel the agenda 
should be modified.

Thanks

-- Flemming

On 6/15/13 5:39 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> (and yes, this is enough time that one could fit in a slot for "no 
> plan" too)
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:40:32 +0200

> Based on the above, please let us know if folks still feel the agenda 

If the purpose is to inform people about the plans, that's a fine agenda.

If the purpose is to find out whether there's a chance we can find 
consensus around one plan, another plan or a third plan, I think the 
agenda is not suited for that purpose.

Since the point of having an IETF process is to get to decisions, and 
the point of having interims is to further the IETF process, I still 
think we could allocate more time to what's important.

This issue's been festering for a year at least. We need to stop 
informing ourselves and find a consensus.

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:30:16 -0400

+1

Try to make progress towards a decision (or, gasp, an actual decision)

On 6/17/2013 3:40 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> each of the plan presentations as we go through them, hence the 1 
>> hour allocation for each suggested. Furthermore, we wanted to ensure 
>> that each plan got it's fair share of time allocated to discussion. 
>> The remaining 40 mins were intended to be more open-ended discussion 
>> based on what we have heard and discussed for each plan by then.
>>

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]