[MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs .... how to pick a default?
Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Wed, 09 October 2013 15:44 UTC
Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9522A11E81B3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1zU1DUeWAlvo for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1976F11E819A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fa1so1224546pad.5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=AA6L5n2ZPxd3G+MTjozhbo9JYYyCU9dsrJ5z3zxgFCY=; b=JTC8egjB2HdguMBOzsUdvDuozCUK08GWIKGUhPBAOL9Cu2Iz+dERd/6CRtE3coRv1/ UcmM2eTb3pMCmXBID1+YfLaDziYyVxj6+Y1k3AJ/Kk2f/dUspzna3aiHLwEA+zRlzmiD JiWK2ufcQP/bZriRKg+vsm1uT7OzXiXLaYz1dabuzByWNdNwNm8kmlBhQGaSM8ucjn90 SUw9e/yneiYsrpvdYCeKyPQwCvVt60W3hn1YavoERJbfVDYP3uUD7qq209eEJ/RtjDgm qgVPFVKTycOYtaOTn6w00wK1Sp3JpMjuV3ZE2u+ad98BkSgnkyTCHwULYlqSZOu6ImI+ 2Y7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJZDVaqy+6bQeJkiyrkV8I4Om2Jl5DQBlNk9CZS6ebmJCXGux1mggC5mH4MDuxmYdM1oiB
X-Received: by 10.68.96.130 with SMTP id ds2mr8513047pbb.99.1381333471571; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a6sm742955pbr.17.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id y10so1144024pdj.22 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.68.164.165 with SMTP id yr5mr8695493pbb.146.1381333471062; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.191.163 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:44:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaJYn-PW-zXHO1MiHBgR9KJiDGyfobjgzUOjdefqry_VhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs .... how to pick a default?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:44:36 -0000
Hey all, We've recently implemented support for DTLS/SRTP and a question that we had somehow avoided in the past with SDES and ZRTP is now back on the table: By default, which profile would a SIP UA use in an outgoing offer? Until recently recently we were offering RTP/AVP by default, which is ok for ZRTP and tolerated by most of the endpoints that support SDES. We also had a couple of config options that allowed Jitsi to (A) create offers with RTP/SAVP(F) in case someone turned out to be picky about the transport or (B) duplicate all m= lines and offer them with every supported transport so that the remote endpoint would pick what it likes. Obviously option (A) is not a suitable default for a generic SIP UA because that would make it incompatible with the majority of the endpoints that exist today. (B) could have worked but now that we are going for "Unified", having the same "m=" line appear with RTP/AVP and then again with RTP/SAVPF would have to be interpreted as two independent streams rather than the same stream being available over two different transports. So, do we have a story here or do we need to create one? Emil -- https://jitsi.org
- [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs ....… Emil Ivov
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Emil Ivov
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Emil Ivov
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [MMUSIC] RTP/AVP vs RTP/AVPF vs RTP/SAVPF vs … Charles Eckel (eckelcu)