►
From YouTube: IETF96-MMUSIC-20160722-1220
Description
MMUSIC meeting session at IETF96
2016/07/22 1220
B
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
The
agenda
for
today
we
have
the
regular
introduction
and
status
update
for
few
moments
and
then
the
session
is
mostly
dedicated
to
discussing
the
RTC
web
related
drafts
review.
We
need
to
get
them
through
the
publication
flows
process
the
plans
we
have
for
for
future
work
here
in
the
close
future,
and
we
also
have
a
late
request
for
discussing
the
language
attribute
ambiguities
in
STP
in
the
SDK
base
document.
At
the
end
of
this.
E
So
regarding
the
working
group
status,
we
have
one
published
RF
seasons
lost
by
ATF
meeting,
that's
RFC
7850
on
registering
the
values
for
transporting
RTP
over
tcp
under
various
RTP
profiles.
We
have
three
documents
in
the
RFC
editor
queue.
The
first
ones
have
been
there
quite
a
while
the
last
one
has
recently
entered.
F
Roslyn
I
am
I
having
the
first,
which
is
in
off
the
40
80
or
DSP,
was
back
in
the
nut.
Traversal
I
have
to
say
I'm,
sorry
that
it's
taking
so
a
long
time,
but
yeah
I
hope
for
probably
not
finish
happy
for
modification,
but
hopefully
by
mid-september.
Ii
should
have
some
serious
progress
on
getting
them
down,
but
I
think
will
be
probably
into
November
before
it's
all
result.
G
D
H
H
H
So
you
know
it
I
think
the
reason
the
normative
reference
was
taken
out
was
because
the
circuit
breaker
wasn't
ready
and
I
think
it's
now
about
to
become
ready,
so
I
don't
much
care
either
way.
But
if
the
reason
was
just
because
the
other
death
wasn't
ready,
you
may
want
to
reverse
that
decision
given,
given
that
it
can
probably
be
done.
Trivially.
E
We
have
a
cup
that's
waiting
for
right
up
in
pretty
good
shape.
We
have
working
group
consensus
on
the
bundled
negotiation.
A
few
of
these
drafts
will
also
be
presented
in
later
slides
I'm,
not
commenting
too
much
on
those
right
now
in
working
group.
Last
call
we
have
the
RTP
stream
constraints,
the
read
drafts
and
the
simulcast
drafts,
and
we
have
a
number
of
drafts,
also
getting
close
to
working
group
last
call
and
all
of
those
would
be
mentioned
later
as
well.
E
E
We
have
had
one
STP
Directorate
review
from
the
payload
draft
payload
working
group,
there
RTP
ancillary
data-
thank
you
so
much
Dan
wing
for
reviewing
and
coming
now
into
what
we're
going
to
do
here
today.
This
is
a
summary
slide,
probably
a
bit
small
text,
but
it's
intended
to
give
you
an
overview
of
what
drafts
drafts
we
have
to
deal
with
and
they
are
ordered
in
terms
of
readiness
from
top
to
bottom.
E
So
we
have
the
max
attributes
in
IOT
F
last
call,
and
that
is
depending
on
the
bundled
negotiation
we
have
max
exclusive,
we're
lost,
call
has
ended
and
nothing
holding
it
up.
So
that
is
pretty
good.
We
have
the
bundle
negotiation
which
is
working
groups
lost
calls,
but
some
updates
needed
and
a
few
drafts
holding
it
up.
E
I
E
I
D
D
Yeah
and
also
real
quick,
so
we'll
have
follow-up
slides
on
several
of
these
just
to
go
through
in
a
little
bit
more
detail.
But
I
know
that
some
of
the
ice
folks,
they
have
some
time
constraints,
so
I
just
wanted
to
cover
here.
What
we
tried
to
do
here
with
the
color
coding
was
to
show
the
documents
that
are
essentially
outside
the
control
of
M
music,
but
we
depend
on
those
and
we're
hoping
to
get
some
status
updates,
and
hopefully
some
target
dates
in
place
that
would
lift
or
address
those
dependencies.
J
Arika
runnin
ice
co-chair,
so
we
had
a
good
session
on
ice
group
and
on
the
trickle
ice
and
ice
piece.
We
servos
dependency
for
two.
You
guys
I
think
we
are
very
confident
that
we
can
be
last
calling
them
soon.
Over
September
timeframe.
Trickle
is
basically
almost
almost
ready
and
ice
peace.
We
are
depending
on
still
discussion
on
this
issue
called
mobile
pacing.
How
fast
can
you
do
collectively
checks?
We
need
to
talk
with
transport
folks,
but
I
think
we
are
making
ok,
so
ok,
Martin
can
give
latest
on
that
disgusting.
J
K
Going
as
Omar
Thompson,
we
had
a
discussion
with
the
transport
folks
and
got
some
really
good
feedback
and
input
from
from
them.
It
won't
be
as
simple
as
you
said,
but
we
actually
have
a
very
nice
clear
right
up
from
Jonna
that
describes
exactly
did
sort
of
analytic
framework
that
they
plan
to
use
for
this,
and
how
how
you
would
write
this
up,
including
specifics.
It's
very
specific
and
an
actionable.
You
were
hoping
to
do
this
within
sort
of
a
month.
I
think
that's
actually
quite
realistic.
K
The
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
get
up
here
to
say
this
is
an
impressive
amount
of
work,
and
it's
really
good
to
see
that
it's,
this
mature
I'm
I'm
impressed.
So
thanks
to
the
people
who
did
that
another,
the
RCC
web
chairs
like
to
ride
you
pretty
hard
on
on
this
one.
It's
Ted
I
mean
let's,
let's
not
beat
around
the
bush
on
this.
One
ted
has
been
asking
for
this
for
a
very
long
time
and
I
think
he's
actually
getting
what
he
what
he's
asked
for
yeah.
K
J
Okay
and
one
more
thing,
our
Caravan
again
here
on
people
are
run
for
the
next
session.
We
gotta
be
lasting
those
documents
and
we
will
be
needing
for
reviews,
so
everyone
who
cares
about
those
dependencies
going
forward,
please
volunteer
to
review
both
the
ice
piece
and
trickle
ice
from
the
ice
cream
group,
and
also
you
can
relate
this
to
the
RTC
web
group
chairs.
If
you
can
also
ask
in
your
group
able
to
review
those
documents
going
up
Alaska
soon,
that
would
be
very
helpful.
D
M
D
Do
and
that's
why
we're
pushing
on
it
right,
and
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
sufficiently
mature
that
we
feel
comfortable
progressing
the
other
drafts
it
doesn't
have
to
be
published.
But
if
we're
not
sure
that
there's
going
to
be
changes
and
yeah,
that's
a
bit
of
an
issue.
That's
why
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
to
the
working
class
calls.
Whoever
later.
J
H
D
P
P
D
Guess
is
really
far
Ian
Peter
right,
so
if
you
just
let
them
know,
that
would
be
good
because
I
mean
it.
That
is
an
issue
that
we're
running
into
here
as
well,
and
their
music
I
think
we're
little
short
on
reviewers
at
this
point.
So
that's
actually
what
we're
going
to
be
focusing
on
in
the
next
several
slides
here
getting
people
signed
up
because
otherwise
again
we
can't
really
move
forward.
D
N
H
D
Have
checked
everything
that
belongs
to
M
music
and
if
it
goes
outside
of
M
music,
then
we
have
checked
with
the
working
group
chairs
and
authors
of
those
drafts
and
asked
them
to
say.
When
is
your
draft
ready?
We
have
not
followed
their
dependencies,
we
have
perhaps
incorrectly,
but
we
have
assumed
that
they
understand
their
own
dependencies.
Oh
sure,.
H
Q
Q
Related
do
yeah,
but
so
yeah
I,
don't
think
the
last
three
are
and
then
the
previous
slide
here
I
mean
previous,
like
you
had
other
works
at
the
bottoms
right,
so
I
mean
these
are
all
effect.
I
mean
the
bottom.
Second,
major
bullet
is
all
mouth
stuff.
That's
are
just
about
dependency,
that's
just
taking
advantage
of
it.
I
guess
the
first
two
are,
as
you
said,
I
mean,
probably,
if
they're
not
in
the
citation
chain.
That's
probably
the
citation
is
busted
somewhere
that
should
be
fixed.
Q
Q
D
Q
That
one
is
the
floss
track,
of
which
one
is
which
oh,
that
one's
the
one
work
that's
doing,
the
in
band
s
T
in
band
protocol
to
see
yeah,
that's
not
an
RTC
web
dependency,
all
right
and
okay.
You
know
I
think
the
question
is
whether
case
F
wants
to
site
for
the
I-66
Bess
or
not.
Is
the
question
then
I
guess
it
depends
on
what
to
change?
And
if
it's
important.
P
D
And
I
mean
we're
just
trying
to
put
this
stuff
up
right,
that's
important
and
give
that
priority.
It's
not
like
there's
any
issue
with
4566
bits,
but
there's
only
so
many
cycles
from
everybody.
So
if
it's
not
needed,
then
it
hasn't
gotten
a
lot
of
attention
and
that's
the
only
reason
it's
not
on
the
list
it
can
get
put
on
the
list
and
then
we'll
put
some
priority
on
it
as
well.
If
that's
necessary,.
O
H
H
R
Ben
Campbell,
when
you
you
mentioned
just
cycle
starvation,
getting
all
this
stuff
through
review
and
everything
keep
in
mind
that,
depending
on
where
the
pins
get
pulled
and
things
dislodge,
this
can
be
a
big
hairball
going
through
the
ietf
last
call
and
iesg
and
the
arts
the
editor
process.
So
just
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
have
any
specific
guidance
to
try
to
make
that
easier,
but
but
keep
in
the
back
of
your
head.
So.
R
E
Going
to
the
individual
drafts
and
having
some
more
discussion
on
them,
we
have
the
bundle
negotiation
which
is
kind
of
a
spider
in
the
web.
For
many
of
these
drafts
that
has,
as
was
said,
the
external
dependencies
on
on
ice
and
on
MUX
attributes
and
max
exclusive,
although
the
last
two
ones
are
in
good
shape,
shouldn't
be
a
problem.
We
have
a
few
issues
in
the
document
itself.
S
Q
No,
no!
No!
This
is
the
single.
No.
He
said
it
right,
so
Charles
Lennox,
that
was
the
issue
I
raised.
I,
did
not
intend
this
to
be
a
blocker
for
bundle.
I
intended
this
to
be
a
potential
future
extension
to
bundle.
I
do
not
think
that's.
I
mean
I.
Think
that,
given
the
that
this
is,
as
you
say,
the
lynchpin
for
most
of
most
of
our
TC
web
I,
don't
want
this
to
be
an
issue
would
be
fairly
would
be,
require
some
fairly
new
work.
H
Q
H
I
Christa,
it
was
initially
a
little
unclear
exactly
what
I
mean
it
is
it's
an
editorial
task.
It
was
a
little
difficult
for
me
to
figure
out
how
exactly
to
do
it,
but
then
then,
I
I
had
some
other
things
which
I
had
to
do
for
for
this
meeting.
So
I
also
informed
you
that
I
will
not
be
able
to
do
this.
I
Q
I
I
In
this
draft
have
reviewed
it
every
time
someone
has
reviewed
it.
It's
you
know
it's
and
a
lot
of
the
reviews
have
been
regarding
it
editorial
issues
and
most
of
the
times,
I
have
to
rewrite
many
things
in
the
document.
It's
just
not
Senate
changed
this
sentence,
and,
and
the
problem
is
that
when
someone
gives
a
comment
or
have
given
a
comment,
I
understand
people
who
are
busy
but
I'm
just
saying:
what's
you
know
being
a
problem
here,
other
people
who
are
interested
it?
I
They
don't
really
care
about
those
comments
that
are
given
by
someone
else.
So
then
I
ask
okay.
Are
we
of
cavities
changes
and
then
I?
You
know
no
one
says
anything:
I
submit
the
new
version
and
the
next
person
comes
along
and
reviews
it
and
say
you
know:
I,
don't
like
this
editorial
change
and
sometimes
he
or
she
asked
to
change
back
to
what
it
was
previously.
So
it
would
really
be
good
at
anyone
who's
interested
when
someone
gives
one.
I
One
else
gives
comments,
take
a
look
at
those
and
participate
in
the
discussions,
because
otherwise
is
going
for
been
back
and
forth
and
back
and
it's
and
eventually,
even
though
I
try
to
cover
everything
every
time
you
do,
that
kind
of
rewrite,
there's
a
big
chance
of
missing
ups,
forgetting
something
and
and
mess
up
things.
Sorry,
no.
D
I
agree
completely:
Krista
and
I
don't
mean
that
we're
going
to
be
working
group
glass,
calling
the
entire
document
thinking
and
asking
people
to
review
and
change
everything.
The
challenge
that
you
know
as
a
chair
we
have
sometimes
is
when
we
do
the
replication
request.
Write-Ups
right.
You
know
we
ask
people
who
have
reviewed
this
document
and
even
if
you
didn't
find
anything,
just
say
that
you've,
you
didn't
you're,
okay
with
it,
we
don't
get
in
response
right.
So
it's
it's
hard
to
indicate.
You
know
solid
consensus
on
those
documents.
I
H
I
D
C
P
D
S
T
Cooper
other
people
who
are
not
in
this
working
group
are
going
to
have
to
read
this
document
like
14
other
area
directors,
so,
like
I,
understand
that
you
don't
want
to
change
all
of
it
but
like
it
has
to
be
up
to
some
bar,
so
that
somebody
who
is
completely
unfamiliar
with
this
can
read
it.
Otherwise,
it's
just
me
stuck
in
Iasi
evaluation
waiting
for
that
to
get
fixed
and
it.
D
Some
point
I
mean
quite
frankly,
you
know
the
editor
primary
author
has
been
bending
over
backwards
to
address
comments
and
gone
through
I.
Don't
know,
I
mean
you're
working
through
class
calls
at
some
point.
You
got
to
say:
there's
been
enough
of
an
opportunity
for
everybody,
it's
a
comment
on
it
and
get
their
editorials
and
and
I
think
we
have
passed
that
point.
H
Seconds
I
mean
it's
that
this
draft
is
complicated
enough,
that
whatever
we
do
we're
going
to
find
some
bugs
with
it
later.
So
it
may
be
the
case
of
it's
good
enough
ship.
It's
open
the
best
draft
and
just
let
it
trundle
trundle,
trundle
and
gradually
accumulate
fixes
because
yeah
something
this
big
is
not
going
to
be
perfect.
However
much
we
try
at
this
point.
U
V
Guess
I
liked
understand
with
the
position
with
the
positioning.
It's
not
jurist.
This
me
established
is
that
that
kinda
Sanders,
making
the
talking
more
more
readable
or
not
valued,
then
fine,
but
then
I'm
not
figured
as
you're
reading
it.
So
there's
one
apply.
The
five
people
has
to
implement
in
this
room
like.
I
R
Ben
Campbell,
let's
not
get
too
wrapped
around
hypotheticals,
but
I
would
say
you
know
if
people
have
I
have
trouble.
Reading
this
comments.
Take
the
comments
then
figure
out
what
to
do
with
them.
The
answer
may
be
that
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
do
that.
The
answer
may
be.
Oh,
yes,
you
found
something
important
just
because
you
have
comments
doesn't
mean
you
have
to
agree
with.
America
don't
have
to.
You
know,
follow
every
single
one
of
them.
E
E
I
Krista
I
would
not
like
to,
and
my
suggestion
is
people
don't
spend
time
now
and
review
the
current
version,
because
there
will
be
changes
due
to
this
TTL
assisted,
be
so
I.
You
know
if
people
really
want
to
review
something
I'm
sure
they
found
something.
Yet
you
know
we
bundle,
but
anyway,
no
I
think
we're
gonna
do
continue
with
this,
and
and
Roman
also
have
had
I've
had
discussions
with
him.
So
he's
gonna
help
me
with
this
one
one
if
I
put
my
RTC
web
hat
on
a
while.
I
I
There
was
just
one
little
strange
comment
saying
we
should
cover
everything
but
or
something
like
that:
I'm,
not
sure
how
we're
removing
that
it's
going
to
speed
things
up,
because
I
don't
remember
now
from
my
head
exactly
where
the
issues
are,
but
maybe
that's
something
we
should
you
think
about
or
if
something
in
someone
is
doing
in
DTLS
over
HTTP
and
think
we
really
need
to
have
the
offer
answer
procedures.
Fine,
we
continually
split
it
up,
but
no
one
really
said
anything
and
when
I've
been
talking
to
other
people,
no
one
has
ever
indicated.
E
E
Q
I
Do
that
and
I
also
comment
that
when,
when
Rahman
and
I
discussed
it
is
a
it's
actually
quite
funny,
because
Roman
find
I
think
bugs
in
the
actual
transport
working
group
documents
and
I
think
he
discussed
those
with
those
people,
but
it's
like
yeah,
let's
even
not
really
bad,
but
things
that
not
really
need
to
be
that
as
they
are
so
we
are
not
I
mean
they
are
not
going
to
update
the
documents
we
will
align
to
that.
Maybe
we
will
have
some
notes.
I
E
So
we
will
ask
to
the
list
then
about
reviewers
and,
as
Krister
said,
it
does
not
seem
to
be
the
very
first
priority.
We
have
other
documents
that
more
important
push
this
one
a
bit
lower
down
on
the
list.
So
the
next
document
we
have
here
is
the
ice
sip
SDP,
where
we
have
known
as
a
diploma
to
dependency
on
ice
base,
and
we
have
an
O
nine
version
that
should
address
all
identified
open
items,
meaning
that
we
could
take
this
working
group
last
call
as
soon
as
ice
base
is
ready
for
working
group.
E
D
A
E
E
Next
step
would
be
to
include
the
latest
review
comments
from
Krister
and
post.
Another
version
so
expected.
Completion
date
of
this
would
be
very,
very
soon
ready
for
working
group.
Last
call
and
candidates
for
review
could
be
poor,
cassavetes,
Jonathan,
possibly
Simon,
Marcin,
sue,
Haas
and
Adam,
and
those
we
have
in
the
room.
Can
we
have
some
indication
Adam.
Thank
you,
Jonathan.
Thank
you.
S
D
I
W
E
X
So
a
lot
of
this
is
just
this
is
Adam
Roach.
A
lot
of
this
is
just
to
put
the
changes
in
front
of
the
room.
Make
sure
no
one
has
any
objections.
What
was
done,
if
Magnus
sent
a
very
detailed
review,
I
appreciate
that-
and
there
are
a
couple
of
issues
that
were
raised.
I
think
we
probably
want
to
have
some
amount
of
discussion
on
I
wanted
to
see
if
we
could
just
come
to
consensus
on
them
real,
quick
here
in
the
room.
V
X
The
first
one
is
that
Magnus
suggested
a
number
of
things
that
we
would
need
to
do
to
clean
up
our
use
for
declarative
use
of
RIT.
Now
we
had
had
it
in
there.
Originally,
it
was
kind
of
a.
We
don't
see
any
use
cases
for
this,
but
if
we
just
can
describe
with
relatively
little
effort
how
this
works,
then
it's
kind
of
nice
because
it
means
if
someone
comes
up
with
use
case
in
the
future,
they
don't
have
to
go
and
do
the
work
for
it.
They
can
just
use
it.
X
It
is
looking
like
we
might
need
to
put
significantly
more
definitions,
around
declarative
use
with
read
and
based
on
that,
my
inclination
would
be
to
say:
okay,
let's
go
ahead
and
pull
it
out,
basically
have
text
in
there.
That
says
we're
not
saying
it's
disallowed,
but
we're
not
defining
what
it
means
here
and
if
some
future
use
case
arises
that
needs
to
use
rid
in
a
declarative
context.
F
X
So
Jenny,
when
does
anyone
else,
have
a
comment
they
didn't
object?
Does
anyone
have
any
use
cases
they
want
to
put
forth
where
this
would
be
useful
on
a
declarative,
the
context
all
right,
Dexter
over
the
draw
document,
I'll
go
ahead
and
pull
that
out.
Then
modulo
discussion
on
the
list,
I
suppose,
and
the
second
one
was
something
Magnus
pointed
out-
is
that
the
items
that
were
putting
in
RTP
and
rtcp
can
be
arbitrary,
utf-8.
X
X
It's
basically
just
start
with
one
and
go
up
for
the
purposes
of
both
being
small
and
being
something
that
doesn't
uniquely
identify
implementations
when
they
don't
want
to
be
identified,
basically
everyone's
generating
these
the
same
way,
then
everyone
kind
of
looks
the
same
so
based
on
that
I,
don't
see
the
need
to
be
able
to
put
arbitrary
utf-8
in
here.
These
don't
have
semantics
associated
with
them
other
than
this
matches
that
so
my
inclination
there
is
to
just
leave
it
as
it
is
and
say
in
the
SDP
we're
constraining
in
this
way,
and
that's
fine.
X
H
H
P
P
X
H
H
X
H
H
X
H
X
H
X
Q
X
Q
I
think
the
argument
is
that
you
know
if
you
have,
if
the
identifiers
are
defined,
I
mean
in
my
guess.
It
depends
on
your
theory
of
where
the
identifiers
are
coming
from.
If
you
think
that
Affairs
is
coming
from
STP
and
be
pushed
down
towards
the
RTP
stream,
then
obviously
you
know
they
can
be
set
to
whatever
you
think
of
them
as
big
generated
by
the
RTP
level
and
be
pushed
up
to
STP.
Then,
if
it
be,
your
implementation
is
your
implementation.
Q
X
X
Y
L
A
A
Yeah,
so
basically
in
the
slim
working
group,
we
have
had
some
questions
come
up
about
the
interpretation
of
the
Lang
attribute
in
4566
this,
and
so
keuner
has
provided
some
slides
here
that
articulate
what
the
issues
are,
and
ideally
we
would
have
45662
kind
of
clarify
this.
So
we
understand
exactly
what
it's
supposed
to
do
so.
A
Basically,
what
the
current
slim
draft
is
saying
is
interpreting
it
as
saying
that
all
that
declared
languages
must
be
used
in
the
session.
But,
looking
back
at
some
of
the
history,
it
seems
more
likely
that
it's
meant
to
be
a
negotiation
with
a
list
with
with
a
selection,
but
so
we
would
like
clarification
on
that
point.
A
So
this
is
a
proposal
from
a
goon
our
about
the
language
that
he'd
like
to
see
and
I'm
just
trying
to
look
here
what
the
change
is
yeah.
So
some
of
the
changes
here
is
that
he
makes
it
clear
that
the
intention
is
to
select
one
language
actually.
What
would
also
be
helpful
of
people
in
this
room
have
implemented
this
and
can
tell
us
what
they
did.
That
would
also
be
helpful
because
I
don't
think,
we've
been
able
to
find
a
lot
of
folks
who've
done
it.
A
A
E
L
P
So
we
can
just
run
through
these
quickly,
since
we
have
time
I
think
we
went
through
a
bunch
of
these
the
other
night
in
last
night
and
decided
that
actually
what
this
working
group
had
done
looked
right
and
the
other
documents
need
to
match
it.
So
these
were
issues
where
jasa
are
bundled
didn't
match
and
on,
like
you
know,
on
this
one
here,
I'm
not
gonna,
read
this
life.
People
I
think
the
proposed
resolution
of
this
would
be
to
make
Jace
up
match
what
bundle
and
I
sip
SDP
say.
P
P
K
V
V
K
K
I
Just
just
a
comment
in
general:
we
need
I,
don't
know
exactly
from
where
this
is
copied
a
bundle,
but
we
need
to
remember
that
bundle
separates
on
the
initial
offer
when
you
don't
yet
know
whether
bundle
is
gonna
be
there
because
you
need
to
be
backward
compatible.
So
you
need
to
approach.
So
you
need
to
input
your
my
search
stuff
everywhere,
except
in
bundle
only,
but
once
you
negotiate
the
bundle
group,
then
you
can
start
also
putting
it
removing
it
from
our
everyone.
But
one
and.
P
V
Github
they're
trying
to
clarify
the
direction
direction
that
we're
getting
adjacent
authors
is
to
is
to
follow
what
it
says.
Don't
point
to
here
for
every
single
thing
in
the
identical
transport
category
and
if
I
find
something
else
is
not
like.
There's
like
side
of
the
Eagles
fingerprint
I
fix
it.
I
don't
come
back
to
the
well
yeah
yeah,
okay,.
E
F
F
So
one
thing
relating
to
you,
the
simulcast
draft-
is
that
I've
gotten
quite
a
lot
of
questions
around
which
is
actually
an
EVD
core.
It's
the
intersection
between
the
simulcast
STP
descriptions
and
what's
happening
on
the
RTP
level,
and
it's
so
it
I
think
it's
primarily
something
which
it's
directly
related
to
David
core
and
the
actual
data
plane
so
to
say
of
the
packets.
But
it's
how
simulcast
in
rate
looks
downstream
from
an
RTP
mailbox
towards
the
receiver,
and
there
seems
to
be
some
confusion
about
what
the
options
are,
etc.
F
Modes
need
to
be
implemented,
so
I
I've,
I
kind
of
volunteered
me
in
both
to
actually
at
least
write
a
overview
document
on
saying,
okay,
here's
what
you
think
is
happening.
It's
gonna
be
a
possible
to
happen
and
then
I
will
see
if
people
froze
up
on
that
or
thinks.
That
means
this
thumbs
coped
or
anything.
But
so
it's,
it's
really
question
of.
If
you
haven't
I,
see
a
few
or
not
to
be
mixed
model,
etc.