Subject: [clue] MCC in framework?

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:35:00 +1000

Hello all,

We've had some discussion on the mailing list regarding the MCC concept? 
The response seems to be cautiously positive. Is this something that 
people are happy to move forward with in the framework?

I'd be happy to work with Mark for some text for the framework. At least 
if there's text then we can iron out any issues.

There is still the issue of full updates vs deltas but I don't think 
that's a specific problem of the MCC concept.

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:40:22 +1100

Does anyone have any further comments / questions on the MCC? If people 
have concerns it would be good to know them so that they can be 
addressed before the upcoming IETF meeting.

Regards, Christian

On 2/10/2013 1:35 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We've had some discussion on the mailing list regarding the MCC 
> concept? The response seems to be cautiously positive. Is this 
> something that people are happy to move forward with in the framework?
>
> I'd be happy to work with Mark for some text for the framework. At 
> least if there's text then we can iron out any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>

---

From: "Duckworth, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:23:30 -0700

I'm interested in moving forward with the MCC ideas.  In the mailing list discussion, I think there was some support for:
 1. MCC concept in general
 2. Allowing advertisement of MCs without an encoding group
 3. MCC attribute maxcaptures
 4. Consumer ability to choose subset of MCs in an MCC

I'm not sure about the policy and synch-id attributes.  They probably need more discussion.  And we didn't discuss the relation to simultaneous transmission sets.  I need to look at that again, as I didn't understand that section the first time (in draft-groves-clue-multi-content-00).

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Christian Groves
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 11:40 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [clue] MCC in framework?
> 
> have concerns it would be good to know them so that they can be addressed
> before the upcoming IETF meeting.
> 
> Regards, Christian
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:57:22 +1100

Hello Mark,

Thanks for the support.

With respect to policy I agree it needs more discussion on the 
specifics. I think we've discussed it with Christer regarding the 
ability to specify (1st most active speaker, etc). Are you OK with the 
general capability of allowing a policy attribute/s to be specified 
against an MCC?

The sync-id attribute I guess is a form of a policy that indicates that 
a group of MCCs (who have the same sync-id) will send media from the 
same source at the same time.

MCCs can be used within the STS like normal captures. The text in 
Section 3.1.8 from the MCC draft on MCC and STSs largely addresses the 
issues related to section 2.7. Basically today there is an issue that we 
can label a CSE as switched which means that the captures will be sent 
at different times. However if we put those captures in an STS it 
indicates that they all can be sent simultaneously which wouldn't be the 
case. Using the MCC concept would avoid this, i.e. no need for 
"switched" on a CSE.

Regards, Christian