Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Updating JSEP and BUNDLE

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:19 AM Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> >I think we need to split the problem into three parts:
>
> >a) what should JSEP endpoints put into initial offers, when in max-bundle
> mode?
>
> >b) what should JSEP endpoints put into initial offers, when in balanced
> mode?
>
>
>
> Whatever JSEP says they should. There is no specification bug or
> specification misalignment etc that would require us to change that.
>

The current charter text points out the issue here, and I think it's
important that that text be maintained. As I've said, we need to take into
account what existing applications expect, or else we have specs that can't
be implemented.


>
> >c) what should all endpoints do in answers and re-offers (regardless of
> mode)?
>
>
>
> Correct. That is the question we need to answer in order to fix the
> specification misalignment.
>
>
>
> …
>
>
>
> >c) may actually be the most significant decisioni, since it changes the
> behavior for just about every existing app (i.e., offerers will now start
> getting zero ports in their answers, regardless of mode). So I think we
> really
>
> >just have to decide if there is a technical reason to prefer the BUNDLE
> behavior over the JSEP behavior, given the risks of such a change.
>
>
>
> As I have said in off-list discussions, I am not religious regarding how
> we fix the JSEP/BUNDLE misalignment issue. As it covers a case when BUNDLE
> has been negotiated, we don’t need to consider backward compatibility with
> non-JSEP/BUNDLE endpoints.
>

We certainly have to consider backward compatibility with JSEP endpoints
that don't expect to receive port zero in answers. If there's not a strong
argument in favor of this new behavior, the simplest path would be to
revert BUNDLE to the v40 (same as JSEP) behavior.

>
>