Subject: [siprec] Duplicate stream recording [was RE: Proposal for minor changes to metadata to support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.]

From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:35:29 +0000

Duplicate stream shall be represented in SDP itself. There is a proposal for creating AVTEXT WG milestone for duplicate stream. The same attributes shall be used for SIPREC as well. One of the candidate draft proposal for duplicate stream is http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-begen-avtcore-rtp-duplication/. Please let me know in case any issue in adopting duplicate stream using SDP mechanism for SIPREC as well.

Thanks
Partha 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>Of Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:42 AM
>To: Hutton, Andrew
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to support
>mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>
>Hi Andy,
>
>From SRC perspective, there are two streams towards RS with the same
>content and each stream has to have different unique id to differentiate
>with stream_id. The stream_id is not directly mapped with individual CS
>stream as it is not possible with mixed streams. The related current
>text in sec 6.7 of metadata draft is
>
>"A Media Stream class (and its objects) has the properties of media as
>seen by SRC and sent to SRS."
>
>Please let me know whether the text has to be updated for more clarity.
>Also, the open item here is "any attribute is required to indicate that
>two stream towards SRS are same"
>
>Thanks
>Partha
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hutton, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:37 PM
>>To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>Subject: RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to support
>>mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>
>>Hi Partha,
>>
>>Ok so why in your example do the two streams contain different
>>stream_id's if they both are referring to the same stream within the
>CS?
>>
>>Regards
>>Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ravindran, Parthasarathi [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> Sent: 30 May 2012 11:49
>>> To: Hutton, Andrew; [email-masked]
>>> Cc: [email-masked]
>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to
>>> support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> I think that we are in the same page. Duplication of single CS stream
>>> into multiple RS stream is one of the usecase mentioned in the below
>>> mail. Multiple label in "stream" element does not indicate the
>>> duplication of the CS stream automatically. Apart from this, There is
>>> a need of explicit grouping mechanism to say that two stream are
>>> duplicate of each other.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Partha
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Hutton, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:27 PM
>>> >To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi; [email-masked]
>>> >Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >Subject: RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to
>>> support
>>> >mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >
>>> >Hi Partha,
>>> >
>>> >Before looking at your reasons in more detail I want to check we are
>>> on
>>> >the same page.
>>> >
>>> >The case I think we are discussing is recoding the same CS stream
>>> >(m-
>>> >line) in multiple m line streams of one RS. (i.e. a single CS stream
>>> is
>>> >duplicated in to multiple RS streams). Is this also your
>>> >understanding
>>> ?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Regards
>>> >Andy
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Ravindran, Parthasarathi [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> >> Sent: 28 May 2012 18:15
>>> >> To: Hutton, Andrew; [email-masked]
>>> >> Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >> Subject: RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to
>>> >> support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >>
>>> >> Andy,
>>> >>
>>> >> Recording multiple m line in CS has to be represented as follows:
>>> >>
>>> >> 	<stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> 		session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> 		<label>99</label>
>>> >> 	</stream>
>>> >>       <stream stream_id=" EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> 		session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >>            <label>100</label>
>>> >>       </stream>
>>> >>
>>> >> The reason for this approach in XML is due to the metadata model
>>> >> constraints and the exact details are as follows:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) Mapping of each individual label (SDP "m" line) to single
>>> >> stream
>>> by
>>> >> which participantstream's attributes will explain about the stream
>>> >> correctly. Say video label attribute is added in the stream
>>> >> element during mid-dialog whereas the session is established with
>>> >> audio
>>> label
>>> >> & stream, here video label association time is different from
>>> >> audio label association time.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2) Partial update for each stream independently provide more
>>> >> flexibility. (Add & Remove stream without impacting any other
>>> stream).
>>> >>
>>> >> In case of multiple label exists within single stream as shown in
>>> your
>>> >> mail,
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) It is impossible to deduce the association and disassociation
>>> time
>>> >> of the individual label or SDP "m" line
>>> >> 2) It is possible to have the wrong information like indicate one
>>> >> of the stream in "recv" association whereas other stream is in
>>"send"
>>> >> association (Hypothetical scenario).
>>> >>
>>> >> So, stream XML element has to have single label attribute within
>>> >> itself.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Partha
>>> >>
>>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >> >From: Hutton, Andrew
>>> >> >[mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> >> >Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:46 PM
>>> >> >To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi; [email-masked]
>>> >> >Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >> >Subject: RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to
>>> >> support
>>> >> >mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Hi All,
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I just want to make sure I understand the results of this
>>> discussion
>>> >> and
>>> >> >whether we have consensus.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I am assuming we have consensus to move to using "stream_id"
>>> >> >rather
>>> >> than
>>> >> >"id" as this is what the XML experts are telling us is correct.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Mixed Stream Recording
>>> >> >=======================
>>> >> >
>>> >> >For the mixed stream scenario in which streams from two CS's are
>>> >> >mixed in to a single RS stream then the following seems to be
>>> >> >what
>>> we
>>> >> >have settled on.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >      <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >                    session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >                    <label>99</label>
>>> >> >       </stream>
>>> >> >      <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >                    session_id="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >                    <label>99</label>
>>> >> >       </stream>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Recoding same CS stream in multiple m line streams of 1 RS
>>> >> >==========================================================
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I am not sure I have it right for this case but I think assuming
>>> the
>>> >> >change to use "stream_id" and "session_id" would result in the
>>> >> >following:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >	<stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >		session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >		<label>99</label>
>>> >> >		<label>100</label>
>>> >> >	</stream>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Do we have any issues with this?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Regards
>>> >> >Andy (SIPREC Co-Chair).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> >> >> On Behalf Of Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>>> >> >> Sent: 16 May 2012 08:30
>>> >> >> To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi; [email-masked]
>>> >> >> Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata to
>>> >> >> support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Hi all,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In case there is no objection to the below proposal with
>>> >> >> explicit id instead of "id" usage till 23rd May (Next
>>> >> >> Wednesday), I think that
>>> >> it
>>> >> >> is better to incorporate in (-07) metadata draft as these
>>> >> >> changes helps for the progresses of the metadata draft. Please
>>> >> >> let me
>>> know
>>> >> >> your opinion on the same.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks
>>> >> >> Partha
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> On
>>> >> >> Behalf
>>> >> >> >Of Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>>> >> >> >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:40 PM
>>> >> >> >To: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >Subject: Re: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata
>>> >> >> >to
>>> >> >> support
>>> >> >> >mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >John,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >My example is to show how to represent single stream in two CS
>>> and
>>> >> it
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> >as follows:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >      <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >                    session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >                    <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >       </stream>
>>> >> >> >      <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >                    session_id=" zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >                    <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >       </stream>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >In the above example, Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78== is the
>>> single
>>> >> >> >stream id which is Used by two CS namely
>>> >> zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==
>>> >> >> >& zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >The trouble with multiple label in single stream is that the
>>> >> handling
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> >participantstream association for each of the label
>>> >> >> >individually
>>> >> >> within
>>> >> >> >the single stream element.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Duplicate stream recording has to have separate streams to
>>> >> >> >distinguish the actual & duplicate stream.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Thanks
>>> >> >> >Partha
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>-----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> >>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> >> >> >>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:22 PM
>>> >> >> >>To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>>> >> >> >>Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>Subject: RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata
>>> >> >> >>to
>>> >> >> support
>>> >> >> >>mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>Partha,
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>You are suggesting
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id=" zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> ></stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id=" zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>100</label> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>I am confused, what is the example you show supposed to
>>> >> >> >>respresent
>>> >> ?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>To hark back to my original request, what is your objection
>>> >> >> >>to the following, as it seems simpler to me than what you are
>>> >suggesting:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> If we have a persistent RS with a single m-line, and a
>>> >> >> >>>>>> single CS being recorded via a mixed TX/RX stream, then
>>> the
>>> >> >> >>>>>> metadata will have a single<stream>  element, which has
>>> >> >> >>>>>> a label referencing a
>>> >> >> RS
>>> >> >> >>m-line.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Mixed Stream Recording:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Now if we add a 2nd CS to that RS, we will now have
>>> >> two<Stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> elements, one for each CS.
>>> >> >> >>>>>> If they are both being mixed onto the one RS m-line
>>> stream,
>>> >> >> >>>>>> both <stream>  elements will have the same label, ie:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Duplicate Stream Recording If we have a a persistent RS
>>> >> >> >>>>>> with a two m-line's for
>>> >> duplicated
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording, then the metadata will have a single<stream>
>>> >> >> element,
>>> >> >> >>>>>> which has a two labels referencing both the RS m-lines.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>100</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>Rgds
>>> >> >> >>John Stafford | Solution Architect 1 | BT Global Services |
>>> >> Tel:+44
>>> >> >> >>(0)1932 773504   | E: [email-masked]  |
>>> >> >> >>www.bt.com/globalservices
>>> >> >> >>________________________________________
>>> >> >> >>From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On
>>> Behalf
>>> >> Of
>>> >> >> >>Paul Kyzivat [[email-masked]]
>>> >> >> >>Sent: 10 May 2012 21:02
>>> >> >> >>To: Joe Hildebrand
>>> >> >> >>Cc: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>Subject: Re: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to metadata
>>> >> >> >>to
>>> >> >> support
>>> >> >> >>mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>On 5/10/12 11:20 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> id is supposed to be unique across the entire document.  In
>>> >> >> >>> some processing software (such as CSS), id has special
>>> >> >> >>> syntax that takes advantage of that assumption.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>OK, I'll take your word for it, since it sounds like
>>> >> >> >>otherwise
>>> it
>>> >> >> would
>>> >> >> >>take me down a rat hole that I would rather avoid.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>        Thanks,
>>> >> >> >>        Paul
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> On 5/10/12 7:13 AM, "Ravindran,
>>> >> >> >>> Parthasarathi"<[email-masked]>
>>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Paul,
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> XML:id attribute is mentioned in http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-
>>> id/
>>> >> and
>>> >> >> >>>> each element in XML document has at most one single unique
>>> >> >> >identifier
>>> >> >> >>"id".
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Including Joe in this mail thread.
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks
>>> >> >> >>>> Partha
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> >>>>> From: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul
>>> >> >> >>>>> Kyzivat
>>> >> >> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:45 PM
>>> >> >> >>>>> To: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to
>>> metadata
>>> >> to
>>> >> >> >>>>> support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> The new form reads nicely, but it is a bit verbose.
>>> >> >> >>>>> I'd be interested to hear more about why "id" is
>>> >> >> >>>>> *special*
>>> in
>>> >> >> XML.
>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> Thanks,
>>> >> >> >>>>> Paul
>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> On 5/9/12 9:44 AM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Hi John,
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Sorry for the delay reply. In the object model, there is
>>> >> >> >>>>>> unique-
>>> >> >> id
>>> >> >> >>>>>> and association related to the object. In case of XML
>>> >> >> >>>>>> representation, unique-id of the object is represented
>>> >> >> >>>>>> as XML attribute "id" and the association of the object
>>> >> >> >>>>>> is
>>> >> represented
>>> >> >> by
>>> >> >> >>second attribute .
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> While I discussing with XML experts, I understand that
>>> "id"
>>> >> has
>>> >> >> >>>>>> special meaning in XML and it should not be repeated.
>>> >> >> >>>>>> So, I'm proposing to have object name with id for both
>>> >> >> >>>>>> attributes and
>>> >> >> XML
>>> >> >> >>>>> looks as follows:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id=" zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label> </stream> <stream
>>stream_id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id=" zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> <label>100</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream stream_id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session_id="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Please let me know your opinion on the same.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Thanks
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Partha
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *From:[email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:35 PM
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *To:* Ravindran, Parthasarathi; [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to
>>> >> metadata
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> >>>>>> support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Partha,
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> so you are saying there is no need to allow multiple
>>> labels
>>> >> on
>>> >> >> >>>>>> a stream element, as a stream elemet can be repeated in
>>> the
>>> >> >> metadata
>>> >> >> >>>>> multiple times.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> I dont see how this matches the object model, a element
>>> with
>>> >> a
>>> >> >> >>>>>> unique id can surely on occur once in the matadata.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Rgds
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> John Stafford | Solution Architect 1 | BT Global
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Services
>>> |
>>> >> >> >Tel:+44
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <Tel:+44>  (0)1932 773504 | E: [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <mailto:[email-masked]>  |
>>> >> >> >>>>>> _www.bt.com/globalservices
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <http://www.bt.com/globalservices>_
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >>>>>> -
>>> >> >> >>>>>> -
>>> --
>>> >> >> >>>>>> -
>>> >> --
>>> >> >> >>>>>> -
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >-
>>> >> >> >>>>>> ---
>>> >> >> >>>>>> --
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *From:*Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>>> >> >> >>>>>> [[email-masked]]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Sent:* 28 March 2012 22:42
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *To:* Stafford,J,John,JRJ3X C; [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <mailto:[email-masked]>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to
>>> >> metadata
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> >>>>>> support mixed stream and duplicated stream recording.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> John,
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> I'll explain how to form metadata XML element for your
>>> >> >> >requirement:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> "Siprec support for recording same CS stream in multiple
>>> >> >> >>>>>> m
>>> >> line
>>> >> >> >>>>>> streams of 1 RS:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> This is the converse of the above, I propose that
>>> >> >> >>>>>> multiple
>>> >> >> labels
>>> >> >> >>>>>> be allowed in a stream element, the meaning would be
>>> >> >> >>>>>> that the stream is recorded in all of the referenced
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording m-line
>>> >> >> >>streams."
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Here, There are two CS's, 2 m'line and 1 RS. For
>>> >> >> >>>>>> representing as per current XML schema is as follows,
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session=" zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw=="> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream> <stream id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session=" zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> <label>100</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Could you please explain the issue in the above
>approach.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Thanks
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Partha
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *From:[email-masked]<mailto:siprec-
>>> >> [email-masked]>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of
>>> >> >> >>>>>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *To:* [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> *Subject:* [siprec] Proposal for minor changes to
>>> >> >> >>>>>> metadata to support mixed stream and duplicated stream
>>recording.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> This is as follow up to the threads "How to specify in
>>> >> metadata
>>> >> >> >>>>>> that multiple CS's are being recorded in a single mixed
>>> >> >> >>>>>> RS
>>> m
>>> >> >> line
>>> >> >> >>>>>> stream"
>>> >> >> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>>> >> >> archive/web/siprec/current/msg03126.html
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> "How to specify in metadata that a participants stream
>>> >> >> >>>>>> is
>>> >> being
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recorded in multiple m line streams"
>>> >> >> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>>> >> >> archive/web/siprec/current/msg03107.html
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Siprec support for mixed stream recording:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> I propose multiple streams would use the same label,
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> indicating that the streams are recorded in the same
>>> >> recording
>>> >> >> >>>>>> m-line stream.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Siprec support for recording same CS stream in multiple
>>> >> >> >>>>>> m
>>> >> line
>>> >> >> >>>>>> streams of 1 RS:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> This is the converse of the above, I propose that
>>> >> >> >>>>>> multiple
>>> >> >> labels
>>> >> >> >>>>>> be allowed in a stream element, the meaning would be
>>> >> >> >>>>>> that the stream is recorded in all of the referenced
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording m-line
>>> >> >> >>streams.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Implications for existing metadata specification:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> This does not change the existing metadata usage of
>>> streams
>>> >> and
>>> >> >> >>>>>> labels, it just adds more flexibility.
>>> >> >> >>>>>> The only changes required would be that 1. stream's
>>> >> >> >>>>>> label
>>> >> >> element
>>> >> >> >>>>>> maxoccurs="1" restriction would need to be removed 2.
>>> there
>>> >> >> would
>>> >> >> >>>>>> be a 1:n stream:label relationship not 1:1.
>>> >> >> >>>>>> I can't see anything in draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-06
>>> >> >> >>>>>> that
>>> >> says
>>> >> >> >>>>>> there is a 1:1 relationship anyway.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Examples:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Mixed Stream Recording:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> If we have a persistent RS with a single m-line, and a
>>> >> >> >>>>>> single CS being recorded via a mixed TX/RX stream, then
>>> the
>>> >> >> >>>>>> metadata will have a single<stream>  element, which has
>>> >> >> >>>>>> a label referencing a
>>> >> >> RS
>>> >> >> >>m-line.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Now if we add a 2nd CS to that RS, we will now have
>>> >> two<Stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> elements, one for each CS.
>>> >> >> >>>>>> If they are both being mixed onto the one RS m-line
>>> stream,
>>> >> >> >>>>>> both <stream>  elements will have the same label, ie:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Duplicate Stream Recording If we have a persistent RS
>>> >> >> >>>>>> with a single m-line, and a single CS being recorded via
>>> >> >> >>>>>> a mixed TX/RX stream, then
>>> the
>>> >> >> >>>>>> metadata will have a single<stream>  element, which has
>>> >> >> >>>>>> a label referencing a
>>> >> >> RS
>>> >> >> >>m-line.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> If we have a a persistent RS with a two m-line's for
>>> >> duplicated
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording, then the metadata will have a single<stream>
>>> >> >> element,
>>> >> >> >>>>>> which has a two labels referencing both the RS m-lines.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>100</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Finally, we could have both the above scenarios
>>> >> >> >>>>>> together,
>>> >> where
>>> >> >> >the
>>> >> >> >>>>>> mixed two CS recording is duplicated:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="Axzg12XHdhjelfjhdldjf;34jn78=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zzlafnvvjlCHllaHF6mn8kkSS==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>100</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <stream id="EiXGlc+4TruqqoDaNE76ag=="
>>> >> >> >>>>>> session="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>99</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> <label>100</label>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> </stream>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> So why do I think siprec should support these changes ?
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Requirements for mixed stream recording:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> RFC6341 refers to mixed recording in use cases 3 and 11
>>> and
>>> >> in
>>> >> >> REQ
>>> >> >> >>9::
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> In Use Case 3:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> In some cases, more than one concurrent Communication
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Session
>>> >> >> (on
>>> >> >> >a
>>> >> >> >>>>>> single end-user apparatus, e.g., trading-floor turret)
>>> >> >> >>>>>> is
>>> >> mixed
>>> >> >> >>>>>> into one Recording Session:
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> |-------- CS 1 -------|
>>> >> >> >>>>>> |-------- CS 2 -------|
>>> >> >> >>>>>> |-------- CS 3 -------|
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> RS |----------- Recording Session --------------|
>>> >> >> >>>>>> t--->
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> In Use case 11:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> In trading-floor environments, in order to minimize
>>> storage
>>> >> and
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording system resources, it may be preferable to mix
>>> >> >> >>>>>> multiple concurrent calls (Communication Sessions) on
>>> >> different
>>> >> >> >>>>>> handsets/ speakers on the same turret into a single
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording
>>> >> >session.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> REQ-009: The mechanism MUST support the ability for an
>>> >> >> >>>>>> SRC to deliver mixed audio streams from different
>>> >> >> >>>>>> parties of a given Communication Session to an SRS.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> To me this implies multiple CS's in one mixed recorder
>>> >> stream,
>>> >> >> >>>>>> since the requirement specifically
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> says "mix", and "to minimise storage".
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Requirements for Duplicated stream recording:
>>> >> >> >>>>>> RFC6341 does not specifically mention duplicated
>>> >> >> >>>>>> recording
>>> >> But
>>> >> >> >>>>>> I don't think allowing it would complicate the metadata,
>>> and
>>> >> it
>>> >> >> will
>>> >> >> >>>>>> be down to the recorder
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> implementation how it handles the duplicated CS
>>recording.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Rgds
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> John Stafford | Solution Architect 1 | BT Global
>>> >> >> >>>>>> Services
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >>>>>> siprec mailing list
>>> >> >> >>>>>> [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >>>>> siprec mailing list
>>> >> >> >>>>> [email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >>siprec mailing list
>>> >> >> >>[email-masked]
>>> >> >> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>> >> >> >_______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >siprec mailing list
>>> >> >> >[email-masked]
>>> >> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> siprec mailing list
>>> >> >> [email-masked]
>>> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>_______________________________________________
>siprec mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec