Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop (RE: Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop)
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 12:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 C8DC921F8FCB for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 CHmZF1Hs++e8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB58621F8FC5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 13so2898016iea.14 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=720DXUAWNmx7hbIbhIVDj2Bde1RU31L5YEuzs7YmvBQ=; b=vWTJ4+Ag9FWutmGNrSGz7L4PmXxkCqewY9nlIHExguTgvj4Nrxd2+GcmX4KZnsq3oN /PluJ/rSqiGs0lq4ogRsacH9ScPQamzhRyiPcsJSd8PvLq+U0GBxzpPRC4ayK8FUDdF1 fEO0kVlzCF9WnZjwOpynkcpxtZsuJUuBzjAbF1m2xMxWootTLCzP9IURaWy5PUd/vb/y 6zkUCrH/uo7H8Y2p0rR9XcXkzbYBfB7GJvwJgkpFiu3ArPP5yDHFcculFcGTQ2L2xbnd XzltvLSFDZh0v0h0SXFkL7V5g9g7AR3tR7ss0MuA6qBSF0FWStU9JbcfYrgUmrapGfjd XG6A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.87.196 with SMTP id ba4mr2123759igb.20.1363263723066; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.135.202 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51414A88.6040108@alum.mit.edu>
References: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623BD7B3@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <51414A88.6040108@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:22:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDBAF90ew3K6EODmvu6K8QybXaqJqJ4VPHMa_YzY6hKbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop (RE: Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop)
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:22:13 -0000
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:>> As far as I understand it, RTCWeb to Legacy interop can be accommodated >> by a gateway that on one side supports all the bells and whistles of >> RTCWeb such as Bundle and trickle-ICE, and to the other side uses >> existing offer/answer procedures without ICE or Bundle. Right? Or is >> there a particular reason why a WebRTC implementation should assume the >> other end (from its perspective) won’t do Bundle? > > > IMO there is an (at least implicit) goal that a sufficiently functional sip > device be able to interoperate with an RTCWEB-based device without a media > gateway. > *If* the javascript application downloaded into the browser was written to use SIP as its signalling protocol and if the web server had a method of rendezvous with the SIP endpoints proxy, this might be possible. But there is no requirement that the applications make this choice; the system is design so that this is a supported option, not a requirement. regards, Ted > That doesn't mean all sip devices. E.g. support of DTLS/SRTP will be > required. But a device that wants to make this possible should be able to. > This could be important for media-intensive applications. > > Also, the limitations that RTCWEB has discovered, that lead to these > proposals, are also limitations for classes of non-RTCWEB devices and > applications. It would be unpleasant and unfortunate to make one set of > extensions for RTCWEB, and then have to do a different set for other > applications. > > >> I’ve seen some drafts claiming that Bundle would be harmful in for >> instance cellular networks for QoS differentiation. Is that the >> motivation where the non-Bundled RTCWeb use comes from, or are there >> some other good reasons? >> >> For SIP the legacy considerations are of course much more clear. But are >> the SIP vendors interested in Bundle? Presumably the IMS SIP vendors at >> least not, if it complicates their QoS setup. > > > This mostly applies to new applications. There is definitely a large overlap > of needs between RTCWEB and CLUE. > > Thanks, > Paul > >> Markus >> >> *From:*mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] *On >> Behalf Of *ext Christer Holmberg >> *Sent:* 13 March, 2013 22:12 >> *To:* Hutton, Andrew; mmusic_ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Nothing prevents you from only sending host candidates in the first >> offer, of you want to do. >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> Sent from */Windows/* using *TouchDown*(www.nitrodesk.com >> <http://www.nitrodesk.com>) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* Hutton, Andrew [andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com] >> *To:* mmusic@ietf.org [mmusic@ietf.org] >> *Subject:* [MMUSIC] Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop >> >> >> Hi, >> >> It seems that one of the motivations of the current bundle-03 proposal >> is that the first offer is compatible with a legacy device and that a >> second offer is required for bundle (See >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-mmusic-9.pdf) >> >> One issue that I see is that if TURN is being used there could be a >> significant overhead in creating the first offer is multiple TURN >> allocations are needed for each m-line which will all then have to be >> released if bundle is used. >> >> I am not sure if there is a way to avoid this other but the draft should >> I think mention this issue. >> >> Regards >> Andy >> _______________________________________________ >> mmusic mailing list >> mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mmusic mailing list >> mmusic@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >> > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
- [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Ted Hardie
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Int… Dale R. Worley
- [MMUSIC] Bundling and QoS marking (was: Question … Dale R. Worley