Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Floor-media stream mappings

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:17:31 +0200

Hi,

inline:

Cullen Jennings wrote:

> On 12/28/04 11:00 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Folks,
>>
>>I am working on a new version of the draft below, which will be an
>>MMUSIC WG item as agreed in our last meeting in DC.
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-mmusic-sdp-bfcp-00.txt
>>
>>We need a means to provide clients with the Floor IDs to be used in the
>>conference and with the mapping of  each Floor ID with one or more media
>>streams. For example, floor ID 123 maps to the media stream whose media
>>label is 456.
>>
>>a=floorid:123 m-stream:456
>>
> 
> 
> Just to make sure I understand - I assume that several floors could map to
> one media stream

Yes. The syntax would be:

a=floorid:123 m-stream:456
a=floorid:111 m-stream:456

> and a single floor could also map to multiple media stream
> (like audio and video).

Yes. The syntax would be:

a=floorid:123 m-stream:456 779

>>We would like to get feedback on a couple of issues:
>>
>>1) Do we want to include human readable information about the floors
>>encoded in the SDP? (e.g., "request this floor if you want to make a
>>comment on the issue being discussed" or "request this floor if you want
>>to bring up a new issue to be discussed")
>>
> 
> 
> no - the human language issues make me not want to do this. I'm fine with a
> a convention that if their is a floor, you probably need to request it if
> you want anyone to pay intention to your media. Clearly your second example
> would not follow this but I think there are many ways other that SDP that
> users could get the idea of what to floor was used for. I don't find these
> human readable things in SDP very useful in practice.
> 
> That said, I don't feel strongly about this - it the human readable
> description is never used, it does no harm. It could also be added later if
> it was needed. 

I do not feel strongly about this either, but, in any case, we can 
always add it later if we see the need (as you point out). So, I will 
not include it in the draft.

> 
> 
>>2) Do we want to allow the syntax of the 'floorid' attribute to express
>>Floor IDs that do not map to any media stream? If the answer to both 1)
>>and 2) is yes, we could use the floor control protocol to moderate
>>face-to-face meetings where the media does not traverse any mixer, for
>>example.
>>
> 
> 
> yes 

I also think this is useful. We can use the following syntax:

a=floorid:123

> 
> And would also like to consider being able to specify a floor id when no
> media stream exists but where the media stream and association to floor will
> be added in a future SDP. It may be the requesting of the floor that causes
> the creation of the media stream.

The syntax above would cover this as well.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:21:59 -0500

I will again say that I think this is 100% overlap with XCON templates and
"mixing patterns".  It is impossible to use a simple relationship between a
media stream and a floor to understand what the heck the floor does.  The
information needed is in the XCON template and text description.  Allowing
the relationship to also be expressed with SDP leads to conflicts where one
mechanism claims one thing and another mechanism claims another.

Yes, I'm aware of POC work and deadlines, but a bad idea is a bad idea, and
I think this is a bad idea.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:18 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings
> Cc: Joerg Ott; [email-masked]; Keith Drage
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Floor-media stream mappings
> 
> Hi,
> 
> inline:
> 
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>