Subject: [rtcweb] Minutes Tuesday 12th of June 2012 Interim meeting

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:43:44 +0200

Hi,

At this link you will find the first version of the minutes for the
interim meeting on the 12th of June.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/06/12/rtcweb/minutes/minutes-interim-2012-rtcweb-2

Please provide feedback

Cheers

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: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:17:56 +0200

WG,

Minor update based on Mary's notes.

I have identified one potential disagreement in the notes. It concerns
the following part:

Semantic Loss Tolerance (1) (Slide 23)
Keith Drage suggested that PLI could be a MAY and that we simply
describe the implications. Stephan Wenger thinks this is important and
should be REQUIRED to minimize interop failures. Colin commented that
support of this is rather trivial if you support FIR. Stephan Wenger and
Randal Jesup made it clear that how you react is up to the
implementation, it doesn’t have the same semantics as FIR.

Consensus to Require Support.

My uncertainty is if this is Require or Recommend as in the slide.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2012-06-26 11:43, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:59:33 -0400

> My uncertainty is if this is Require or Recommend as in the slide.

I took it (IIRC) as consensus to Require support, but I can't say that 
is 100% certain.

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]

---

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:42:57 +0200

> I took it (IIRC) as consensus to Require support, but I can't say that
I have the same recollection (but am not certain).

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:50:34 +0000

In my notes I have PLI as REQUIRED.
I also have RFC 5761 RTP/RTCP multiplexing as REQUIRED, whereas the notes currently reads that support for separate ports is REQUIRED. I would appreciate clarification on this point as well.
Was the consensus that RTCWEB implementations are REQUIRED to support RFC 5761, meaning support for multiplexing is negotiated and if it fails, using separate ports must be supported?

Cheers,
Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Stefan Hakansson LK
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:43 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Minutes Tuesday 12th of June 2012 Interim meeting
> 
> >> implementation, it doesn't have the same semantics as FIR.
> >>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:43:18 -0700

> In my notes I have PLI as REQUIRED.
That was my recollection.

> I also have RFC 5761 RTP/RTCP multiplexing as REQUIRED, whereas the notes currently reads that support for separate ports is REQUIRED. I would appreciate clarification on this point as well.
Both were required.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:35:02 +0200

Thanks everyone,

Based on that so many has the same recollection then I am certain that
the minutes says the right thing, i.e. PLI Required. Just want to be
sure I wasn't misrepresenting the meetings consensus.

On 2012-06-26 21:43, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> I also have RFC 5761 RTP/RTCP multiplexing as REQUIRED, whereas the
>> notes currently reads that support for separate ports is REQUIRED.
>> I would appreciate clarification on this point as well.

Yes, requiring support of RTP and RTCP multiplexing was never a
questioned. The only question discussed was if one also was required
have support for non-multiplexing of RTP and RTCP.

Is this sufficiently clear:

A Consensus call was held: There was no clear consensus that an
end-point only needs to support RTCP multiplexing, thus the consensus is
that an end-point MUST support RTP and RTCP separately in addition to be
REQUIRED to support RTCP Multiplexing when signaled.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund