Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive?

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >>But, we agreed that we want to have an explicit indicator,
> >
> >My point is that I think that that agreement was wrong and we should not
> do so.
>
> I think such statements should be given when the chairs initially ask the
> community whether it is something we should work on in the first place -
> not during WGLC, after people have spent time and effort on defining the
> feature.
>

Yes, I agree it would have been better to have made this comment then,
sorry about
that. Nevertheless, sunk cost seems like a poor reason to continue with a
feature
which is not useful.


>>and then we can only hope people will implement it (by mandating support
> of it etc).
> >
> >But again, why would you?
>
> Because then you will have a mechanism to explicitly indicate that you can
> do mux only, without having to test-and-fail. The current rtcp-mux
> attribute indicates that you are able to do fallback to non-mux, and
> entities (endpoints and intermediaries) will have to have resources if that
> happens.
>
> Also, in non-ICE cases there will be no candidates, so entities will
> always have to assume that the rtcp-mux attribute indicates possibility to
> fallback to non-mux.
>

I'm sorry, I'm asking a different question: I don't think there's a problem
with new endpoints
emitting this, but I am skeptical that any old endpoints (i.e., the ones
that presently don't
do mux) will add detection for this rather than just adding mux. Can we
point to a significant
population of implementors which intends to add this?

-Ekr


>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>