Subject: Re: MUTE in RTSP

From: David Oran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:04:56 -0400

At 09:41 AM 4/18/97 -0700, Eric Fleischman wrote:
[snip]
>In the first instance, all media streams are treated as a unit and are
>transparently manipulated together. In most/many cases, "presentations"
>will be the product of content creators who have designed these streams
>"off line" to function as that unit to create the intended multimedia
>experience. A MUTE, in this context, would introduce an orthogonal
>concept of providing independent control for one of those streams in the
>"multimedia bundle". This is hostile to the basic underlying philosophy
>of what a "presentation" actually is. MUTE is totally inappropriate
>within a "presentation" since it wars with the "core underlying
>philosophy" of what a "presentation" actually is.
>
Huh? I don't follow this at all. Let's take a presentation like a carefully
ported version of John Waters' famous film Pink Flamingos, which has video,
audio, and smell-o-rama. Now, I'm watching this in my kitchen and I say,
sheesh, I like the movie, but this smell-o-rama stuff really stinks! So, I
hit the "mute-the-smell" button on my player. Now, of course you can do
this as a purely local function, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be
able to tell the server that the smell is muted so the server doesn't have
to transmit all the synthesis instructions to the local olfactory molecule
replicator.

Is John Waters going to come down to my house a berate me because I did
something "hostile to the basic undelying philosophy of what a presentation
is"?...well maybe John Waters *would* do that - never mind :-).

>In the second instance, RTSP provides for the independent control of
>multiple media streams which the user (via the intermediate
>registration/announcement facilities) has orchestrated into a single
>logical session. RTSP has already provided the user with the ability to
>do a MUTE within this context by permitting him/her to PAUSE the audio
>stream and at a subsequent time to PLAY with Offset that same stream. A
>Mute in this instance, therefore, is merely a "simplification" to the
>PAUSE...PLAY with Offset sequence. I have no objection to a MUTE if it
>is solely targeted to this (non-presentation) environment since it
>automates what the "Offset" should be in the "Play with Offset" part of
>the sequence. More importantly, a MUTE in this context is fully
>consistent with the "underlying philosophies" of such logical sessions. 
>
You just did an "undef" of MUTE by saying it's just PAUSE followed by PLAY.
That's OK with me, except then you'll invoke the "presentation principle"
above to say I aint' oughta do dat.

If we can just treat MUTE as a friendly server optimization that a client
can send over to save the server some work, what's all the broughhahaha about?

What am I missing here?

-----------------
David R. Oran
Cisco Systems		Direct: 408-527-0567
7 Ladyslipper Lane	Home Office: 508-264-2048,  Home: 508-263-2705
Acton, MA 01720	EMail: [email-masked]

---

From: Gray Cope <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:58:57 -0700

Hi Karl,

I personally feel MUTE is a good addition to RTSP with regard
to reducing network traffic.  The point that the user has ultimate
control over the presentation had not been missed by me.

My main interest was in seeing if there was some middle ground for Eric.
I realize now that he wasn't concerned about content control
but rather server overhead issues for his MS server.

In general, I see the value in your point about interoperability but
in the case of MUTE as an optional implementation I'm not convinced
it would cause interoperability or make for an unhappy user.

Gray

At 12:23 PM 4/19/97 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> So if the RTSP specification did not _require_ the MUTE request to be
>> implemented would that address your concerns?
>
>Making parts of a specification optional tends to cause interoperability
>problems (and user unhappiness).
>
>
>> Ultimately the content creator or distributor can exercise control
>> over how their presentation is delivered.  That is they can specify
>> that their content not be delivered by a service that implements
>> the MUTE request.
>
>Since the user controls whether the audio is even plugged into speakers or
>whether the screen is turned on, what you suggest would ultimately be
>futile.
>
>Which is better for the network?  To carry packets to the receiver just to
>have them rendered into a device disabled by the user?  Or is it better
>just to supress the useless data at the source and not pay the carrying
>cost?
>
>Somehow this whole thread of "author's rights" strikes me in about the
>same was as did the old Outer Limits TV show -- They said that they
>controlled the horizontal and that they controlled the vertical.  But I
>controlled the power switch.  I think that in this case the user holds the
>trump card over any "author's intention". 
>
>		--karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>