Subject: [clue] Notes from today's call (Aug 14)

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:53:47 -0500

Hi all,

Here is a summary based on notes I took during today's call.  Questions,
comments and/or clarifications are welcome.

Thanks,
Mary.

CLUE WG Design team call (August 14, 2012)

Attendees:  Mary Barnes, John Leslie, Jonathan Lennox, Rob Hansen, Espen
Berger

The description of the issue is not quite accurate as both RTP drafts have
a header extension.  There are actual multiple issues around this that need
consideration:

1) Do we both the static declaration of capture encoding SSRCs and the RTP
header extension method of sharing capture IDs (or just the RTP header)?
2) Where to signal the SSRCs?
3) Whether  the capture ID is assigned by the consumer or advertised by the
provider?
4) We need a solution that works for non-clue users and we need to ensure
that things work in the case of an RTP mixer that might remove the header.

We got into discussion of what documents we need for a solution.  Jonathan
noted that the solutions proposed in the rtp-mapping document are designed
to satisfy all the requirements in the rtp-usage draft.   Mary raised the
concern that additional updates to both docs could cause some divergence
(right now the rtp-mapping document references requirements in rtp-usage
document).

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>wrote:

> The one topic that I think we might benefit from discussing is the new
> issue #11:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/trac/ticket/11
>
> Mary.
>