IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] JSEP Issue #394: What appears in m= lines.

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 16 January 2017 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 6605B129442 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxAlTUubt-3H for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9486C1204D9 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k15so127991473qtg.3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FdhRRk/WVBg4NobVLpCrzyiYM1oRSb1SJQwZRJsPsXY=; b=Gp2kbI3xRklZRCunUAxaYDcOv5HnDhDF/t/wTjNP194/MhVDqUoVKUdhniuqzrtx6u IOVW6Ubo6FN8YKvMPtFGfVX7U78m5y4Eb1Cf23nO0sTGmNHIoWShB5oEWr7GHs2dZpRK 52s1uRkrSsOlZGQE+L4sVcKZLCNBXHlncAYb5oERC7cxkBeFPWJHWWMGD86CsRkhOQ1k cprre75+hoFjVuuxtRXDwz0hSDciBHpT8i+07iOGJebu4pO6oUTWNDuM6HRQ0iBVClZe odNqWoNLmbTSqnpBYF9phB4kOVBaaD4sFjxyHQpplRuGO9Z0DtlwZuib00n4LbmMjuAv +ydg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FdhRRk/WVBg4NobVLpCrzyiYM1oRSb1SJQwZRJsPsXY=; b=dW8e/A4j2yYaAdBqjDk0P+3fXPG+sSl8o7OaBltd9suQg3mN7mgSvccViMIBuxZC17 KzLr8BU0rHNCpgpBIkwOgVYHOL3Y5ocEJ/rUWNLXxZCVoYW9zRUUldYB++M9e+/vVDju hHQ8X7h7v4/1vhieVJRcqQuAXUCJufYG2trdu0GLQVbkA/iWjjlECtIdfiIus/EwhwfC j6rSwWjYqpK7U9coYq8epfGPy5G/f4/WBL70sLT6Qscb+hjYNqFAAVHEMIyH/45yH/Zw EShmR1A/MS1Oxh0VJM8MtWjhVjF79InCB/LDebYDJKt6s9Ojs4roy3Q6AfBTHarNiNgs ttRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLUc/BAlQ1dVCuz4HattqLyGPkr68uO0yGdIfvyERIXGCLQizSVhL1KCcQq4KNVsw==
X-Received: by 10.237.42.108 with SMTP id k41mr30247903qtf.81.1484609875662; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (mail-qt0-f179.google.com. [209.85.216.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i41sm17489900qtc.18.2017.01.16.15.37.54 for <mmusic@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v23so127822437qtb.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.55.161.212 with SMTP id k203mr35934153qke.234.1484609874682; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.147.79 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:37:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BF78DE0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <52E4A8FC978E0241AE652516E24CAF001E483F95@ESESSMB309.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBPznLKNHek-SGE5Ly6QTOBL-j65sZBb5MbwQVkmBkpyFw@mail.gmail.com> <9110d772-9269-7fed-3ed4-5269d49acb84@alvestrand.no> <282955c7-d077-105b-6a99-a0f5ede87d91@ericsson.com> <CABcZeBPtMMR-xC_=pr1umBWY1CPkAm1J=T=Q_1F1bLNkZwtJkg@mail.gmail.com> <D4A2966B.15C88%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <CABcZeBOS+b_bdgaTnQfsNAhdf7g=fspyYON2r5=BoKvPD-32Rw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BF78DE0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:37:54 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtN=sHrGoQU9D=WLXWQwNpCqOT5P6ZwhkaS1945VnTT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtN=sHrGoQU9D=WLXWQwNpCqOT5P6ZwhkaS1945VnTT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06e79436062c05463eaca9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/7XjkOvlEM0w2vlqFjI2pu9qoh7I>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] JSEP Issue #394: What appears in m= lines.
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:37:58 -0000

For JSEP, is there a reason not to require UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF and
UDP/DTLS/SCTP in both the offer and the answer?

Is there a use case to offer only tcp candidates in offer or answer?

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> …
>
> >>>>I hope at least we can agree that an JSEP Answer MUST use the PROTO
> string of the OFFER?
> >>>>
> >>>Yes. I think implementations should offer UDP/ (ICE/ will cause
> problems) and in the answer echo the offer.
> >>
> >> This is related to the generic issue I raised in Seoul, and sent an
> e-mail about last week: is it ok to echo
> >> the transport in the m- line proto value of the answer even if the
> answerer doesn’t support the transport (alt #1)?
> >>
> >> OR, should we mandate a transport that everyone must support, and
> mandate to use that transport as m- line proto value in offers and answers
> (alt #2)?
> >>
> >> People in Seoul preferred alt #1, but I know that at least Roman
> prefers alt #2.
> >
> > I continue to support #1. We should just stop trying to pretend that
> this value has useful semantics.
>
> As #1 was also the outcome of Seoul, I think we should move ahead with it.
> Chairs?
>
> Note that #1 does not prevent individual protocols from defining MTI
> transports, default m- line proto values etc,  but it would not be a
> general requirement to do so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email