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... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
