Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-16

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 27 October 2011 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 769ED21F8B4C for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 hobeZX9My8kh for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D1821F8B49 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.35]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id pwjw1h0080ldTLk57wnTtc; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:47:27 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([24.62.109.41]) by omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id pwnS1h01A0tdiYw3QwnT86; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:47:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4EA9C35C.3000109@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:47:24 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <4EA13A85.2060506@ericsson.com> <F25CFD88-3ADC-4F74-9E72-9E244C733A2C@acmepacket.com> <4EA91C9C.7010801@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA91C9C.7010801@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-16
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, 27 Oct 2011 20:47:27 -0000

On 10/27/11 4:55 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> On 2011-10-25 20:01, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>
>>> 11. Section 5.3 "    Note: A loopback offer in a given media
>>> description MUST NOT contain the standard mode attributes sendonly,
>>> recvonly, sendrecv, or inactive. The loopback-mode attributes
>>> (loopback-source and loopback-mirror) replace the standard
>>> attributes."
>>>
>>> This appears to be a strange MUST NOT which I think might
>>> encounter issues. Considering that SIP proxies that looks into this
>>> SDP requires the direction attribute to be present and adds it,
>>> what happens now. And why isn't sendrecv and inactive possible
>>> values? sendrecv appears to be requried for loopback to work, and
>>> inactive would put media transport in an established session on
>>> hold. Isn't that reasonable?
>>
>> How about this: Since media loopback requires bidirectional RTP, its
>> normal direction mode is "sendrecv"; the "sendrecv" direction
>> attribute MAY be encoded in SDP or not, as per section 5.1 of
>> [RFC3264], since it is implied by default.  If either the loopback
>> source or mirror wish to disable loopback use during a session, the
>> direction attribute "inactive" MUST be used as per [RFC3264].  The
>> direction mode attributes "recvonly" and "sendonly" are incompatible
>> with the loopback mechanism and MUST NOT be indicated when generating
>> an SDP Offer or Answer.  When receiving an SDP Offer or Answer, if
>> "recvonly" or "sendonly" is indicated for loopback, the SDP-receiving
>> agent MAY treat it as a failure of the loopback negotiation or ignore
>> the direction attribute.
>>
>
> That is much better. I think the only "controversial" from my
> perspective is the "ignore" part. It is clearly an error.

Yeah. Normally we don't specify the behavior in error cases.
Doing a behavior is recommended that allows things to proceed in a 
useful way, it is in effect "allowing" the error.

(Specifying *which* error to report, when there is a choice, seems 
reasonable.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>