On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 16:17 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 06/09/2008 4:16 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 16:02 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 06/09/2008 2:30 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 16:17 -0400, Jeff Muller wrote: > >>>>> On 06/06/2008 1:23 PM, Jeff Muller wrote: > >>>>>> I didn't quite glean this from the spec and am not sure if it's been > >>>>>> discussed in this forum, but is there a way to associate two streams > >>>>>> (or > >>>>>> two <content /> entities)? Typically, for a video "call", there are two > >>>>>> streams, audio and video. You want these two streams associated in the > >>>>>> client a) so that they can be presented in an associated way (camera > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> speaker controls near each other), and b) so that they can be > >>>>>> associated > >>>>>> for lip sync. Especially if there are two video streams (for example, > >>>>>> there's a document camera), you want to know which is the "main" stream > >>>>>> that goes (by default) in the main window with the audio controls. Or > >>>>>> for that matter, if you only want to allow one video stream, you know > >>>>>> which one to do a content-remove on. > >>>>> Wouldn't the associated media simply be part of the same RTP session? Or > >>>>> do you want the ability to associate media across RTP sessions? > >>>> I'm definitely not an RTP expert here. But from a quick web search... > >>>> Isn't > >>>> each multimedia type limited to a separate RTP session? From what I > >>>> read, a > >>>> session really just consists of the port pairs for the (single) RTP and > >>>> (single) RTCP streams. Maybe? > >>> You definitely want to be able to associate multiple RTP sessions to > >>> synchronize them. We should define that all the sessions within the same > >>> Jingle negotiation should be synchronized. > >>> > >>> All the RTP sessions (call media aka m= lines) inside the same SDP are > >>> supposed to be synchronized too. > >> So what is the right term for a synchronized set of RTP sessions (e.g., > >> the audio and video sessions from Section 9.3 of XEP-0167)? > > > > There does not seem to be a standard name for the set of synchronized > > RTP sessions. In SIP, they call it a SIP session (how confusing can that > > be). In Farsight2, we call it a conference (but it may not be the > > greatest name). I think you can just write something like "all RTP > > sessions defined in the same Jingle channel should be synchronized" or > > something to that effect. > > Right now I have this: > > *** > > A Jingle negotiation MAY result in the establishment of multiple RTP > sessions (e.g., one for audio and one for video). An application SHOULD > consider all of the RTP sessions that are established via the same > Jingle negotiation to be synchronized for purposes of streaming, > playback, recording, etc. > > *** > > Perhaps it's not a good idea to include the text about purposes...
That seems good to me, with or without the purposes -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collabora Ltd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
