adam s m line musings
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Adam’s m = line Musings

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 8

Adam’s m = line Musings - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on

Adam’s m = line Musings. draft-roach-mmusic-mlines-00 RTCWEB Interim Boston, MA February 5 th , 2013. Three Proposed Approaches. Approach 1a: One m= section per media type, regardless of how many streams of that type in the session Approach 1b: One m= section per session (MMT)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Adam’s m = line Musings' - darrin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
adam s m line musings

Adam’s m= line Musings

draft-roach-mmusic-mlines-00

RTCWEB Interim

Boston, MA

February 5th, 2013

three proposed approaches
Three Proposed Approaches
  • Approach 1a: One m= section per media type, regardless of how many streams of that type in the session
  • Approach 1b: One m= section per session (MMT)
  • Approach 2: One m= section per media stream
codec selection
Codec Selection
  • Handling of preferences in RFC3264 currently assumes one-stream-per-m-section model
  • This requires fix-up for approaches 1a and 1b (or ambiguity and loss of control)
  • Favors approach 2
port number handling
Port Number Handling
  • SDP syntax does not natively support bundling more than one m= section into a single session (port # is mandatory).
  • For solutions 1a and 2, we need to choose “the lesser of two evils”:
    • Indicating the same port in all lines trips up legacy use
    • Indicating different ports (some bogus) in each line trips up some SBCs
  • Favors approach 1b
attribute handling
Attribute Handling
  • Since attributes can roughly apply to either sessions or to streams, creating a distinction requires updates to attribute handling
  • Approaches 1a and 1b can use RFC5576 for stream-level attributes
  • Approaches 1a and 2 can indicate transport-level attributes in all relevant m= sections
  • Because 1a must address both situations, it is more complicated than the either two.
unknown unknowns
Unknown Unknowns
  • Problems such as the codec selection problem are yet to be identified for the general case.
  • Addressing these issues in the future is easiest if we have the most granular control surface possible.
    • This also makes future extensions more compatible with non-RTCWEB SDP use
  • This supports selection of the most granular control surface, which is alternative 2.
problems with all solutions
Problems with all solutions
  • Offerer and answerer needing different number of streams
  • Attribute bidirectionality
  • Implementation complexity
ad