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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 00:00 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 E693B1298D0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:00:01 -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 fXRQQsJTpnLT for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (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 2E84C1298C5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id w75so77798174ywg.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:00:00 -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=BUzaf7ZUVas//3KkQh1DF+ao+dXHtt/7ISJtwrVmmsI=; b=idZQmJGRtFprM/Yi1105GAfxljERzsFxOLJw8JlfK/zrpNtrZduTmkz915iZnrnX6c qxM0+F8jYgORJUUoXm7RzdLKpJ9EPcYMcgXRvCi45TqwYeJhbGKoQoVJ+lSlekSba1J1 dz+hv8YqCiNDjmvMtvyyMD25BoxEGvoJNFb28p/jhDtebuLGs59yOCfF6N8aTdx2xO2l 3XEslBmij7fnlcpMUc7djVpfDCZYMPT70/r+IsPgRsB34bj4pqITwsRlkC/9sIBjdDgC Y3xTj8ziH4ROO/QWKP3qcITsaBNYsJgrxTOe9x4JwHyi+rQ5NZ4cOeAz2ZIAAfEvZawc mT9Q==
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=BUzaf7ZUVas//3KkQh1DF+ao+dXHtt/7ISJtwrVmmsI=; b=k6icqAFwqoyTF8Ratydp8/XuCYz7jBA/N+3LTGV9W0nW/E7Kkqqd9GrQOsVdGF4toD CatGHSr032UcwsGseSgAFGongNJ1UkCvpb7KC45cRrVixSWSSRlW5Cxqw+vfSFmPPBrL DxE/OWSXaC91In6fjz/M4jfF1oABAuxAOZENeK96Sz2Y5I1/HueK0krrzxzAH/fBEVXj bklZBwUkKX3FTBscIuvMYah+jAFovrZWjw0ThLEvbWt/uVY2F+Z6U/61OtFoZzLD4eq/ SH+CIhp6PDaK6R1nQvUzWiAjz/mnAN+7iFot3Hk8mJr5gE28yrChveeUNoC2a7MZvlHX jOrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKJmIpxG6v+Kn1vwnkxllPn2YvqjeTYba4qAyLdtNvL/OuDzsMmk0FQUrMKV2REqTDZeC2NfEnY8+E5yw==
X-Received: by 10.129.46.213 with SMTP id u204mr27651143ywu.52.1484611199330; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:59:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.204.80 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:59:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxtN=sHrGoQU9D=WLXWQwNpCqOT5P6ZwhkaS1945VnTT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAD5OKxtN=sHrGoQU9D=WLXWQwNpCqOT5P6ZwhkaS1945VnTT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:59:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN+MGKD_opEq7bKeafb46o3=jKyMEKLDKQ-Mj8a5eezyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407e082afd6f05463efbf8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Fn_Yytn65Qm5-5xRBlztLN454Hk>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:02 -0000

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> For JSEP, is there a reason not to require UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF and
> UDP/DTLS/SCTP in both the offer and the answer?
>
>
As an answerer, you may get TCP/<blah> from non-JSEP endpoints and the
consensus was that echoing them was better

-Ekr

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
>>
>
>