Re: [MMUSIC] Sending a=rtcp-mux-only w/o a=rtcp-mux

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 06 February 2017 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 D238D129DDC for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:33:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-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 fAQRWNVXdtWP for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 5A828129DDD for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v200so49333781ywc.3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 06:33:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sawjZ4oserXND/ncp65N8cdwCtefGUkyqYGIyxMmje8=; b=fGVCj1dVdC5dy1Ax4MWhRXhG2I/0jMhfhWJlVIOCXK16QjQ+ANVHfI5xIR1Tua1IXF Fqt3A21MKrc+ouhPq48MWeiFxrQTtItLfuFMh7fDuDWsvOwSRAbdyBmGtgk9pISohnAg CTkWZ4bHRaIIIFek2Th47TPYkUjhrz5QD9DSpQ+G9Q1QnQhJwUFHF9vgMJ5h0sOIIEFm f4fyRGLQ1oSsNv34WoWv4G+uK7Hh1abCuNh7agXf2eQplNaDGLGTvFsUVyE+J9uKPVEO OBqXn8rIQNwuRcomcUsxXRopgSvBl6Y5AIfVj4NcQCKBVD42LNMkKLMWXuUWqWPN4j+H wCDw==
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=sawjZ4oserXND/ncp65N8cdwCtefGUkyqYGIyxMmje8=; b=Dw4CgRHKYWsNZU+HkGFzTFLIfluwMbi23sBSG0wbpG4mqU+O0fPuVwFU8A3ftMGIzi RH/RFxqsgHRae7uvr5izHxruF6klLWCWUg1bTiwZVDylUaoWWeIzco3MKLnvGkJA/PsE sMBp0D1YALB5ROnUj2rS/OMDCIbESPL+hXVq0XCxNt2rlNaQ6Y9dD7018w/nV+dOwzGl G5Fd9RQauTIQpKI1QvO2h0EMdOFj/PUTAU+CqrJYtn5GHHYEWuuJUFhOYoomFxr6KgDt oqzv/+CdIOfMBkEMPKOQnbGCUHy6kXMVFcWaT13Xiu1I8YKUnxgHdvaLLS0hMg+TAkX+ iv3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ny0/eGbte6Cgm/Ul15ngijFBGWDVL7faDBa7AGJLj0/ZbXZ8X8aJ/z9qipNLqyOOQQapTBhebOkEHm1w==
X-Received: by 10.129.162.130 with SMTP id z124mr7951581ywg.276.1486391603585; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 06:33:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.204.80 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:32:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D4BE4DA4.17818%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <CABcZeBPESaiH2wuE8RhcBHKz5h10MjKQ_EBDzcRpoy7mYeaspA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOY5pNRB=W_Zkqm5gYDMRGb-p7ChYctGRmfw5oGyYk-Pg@mail.gmail.com> <D4BE3D32.17805%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <CABcZeBO9j2nRqJduZCaaKJPT7YFNzrgLpKncmkvJ+6R=wjAH_w@mail.gmail.com> <D4BE4DA4.17818%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 06:32:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMnJ5QoRt3id0dOPVZyyQgzNTtccMqt2dm14sedZOOXVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c12929287a2320547dd8364"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/DUhltRb9KVlgekyI9mufrpUlOPo>
Cc: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Sending a=rtcp-mux-only w/o a=rtcp-mux
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, 06 Feb 2017 14:33:26 -0000

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >>> Following up to myself, I don't think it's sensible for answers to
> >>>contain a=rtcp-mux-only, because either you accepted mux, in which case
> >>>all is good, or you rejected it, in which case it was rejected.
> >>
> >> While I agree that a=rtcp-mux would be enough in the Answer as far as
> >>indicating mux is concerned, including a=rtcp-mux-only in the Answer
> >>does indicate that the Answerer supports the mux-exclusive mechanism.
> >
> > I don't see how that's really that useful
>
> But what harm does it cause?
>

I don't think that's the standard here. We should only send indicators in
SDP when they
do something useful.

-Ekr


> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Eric Rescorla
> <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> I have been reading the mux-exclusive document and I'm not sure it says
> quite what we want. Specifically, S 4.2 says:
>
>    When an offerer sends the initial offer, if the offerer wants to
>    indicate exclusive RTP/RTCP multiplexing for RTP-based media, the
>    offerer MUST associate an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute with the
>    associated SDP media description ("m=" line).
>
>    In addition, if the offerer associates an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only'
>    attribute with an SDP media description ("m=" line), the offerer MAY
>    also associate an SDP 'rtcp-mux' attribute with the same SDP media
>    description ("m=" line), following the procedures in [RFC5761].
>
> As I understand this text, the offerer may say the following things:
>
>  1. No a=rtcp-mux: No muxing.
>  2. a=rtcp-mux: I am offering RTCP mux
>  3. a=rtcp-mux-only + a=rtcp-mux: I will only do RTCP mux
>  4. a=rtcp-mux-only: I will only do RTCP mux (same as #3).
>
> I don't think the last of these is sensible. No current implementation
> will know what to do with a=rtcp-mux-only w/o a=rtcp-mux, so this will
> result in interop failures. Thus the MAY in the second graf needs to be
> a MUST.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>