Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: Do we need to mandate identical SDP attribute values?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 06 October 2016 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 AAA13129832 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 N8V-05mnAVfl for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0CDE12955E for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-aa3ff7000000099a-9b-57f61af1f196
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.63]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 68.DE.02458.1FA16F75; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:35:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.32]) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.63]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:35:44 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: Do we need to mandate identical SDP attribute values?
Thread-Index: AQHSHiwofDubrkbtCEu3VfmkQRPgmqCaG2pAgAAN1UD//+oUAIAAIpcg///kRYCAACZH8P//5v0AACMX/wA=
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 09:35:44 +0000
Message-ID: <D41BF5AE.108D0%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <D41963FD.1059F%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <AM5PR0701MB25770AB3719E8C10A6C040058DC40@AM5PR0701MB2577.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BD1BCF8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAMRcRGQp5u_dP5L++yHu4NtfPWu+wc=v=0Xec+4WeAUw=jZWYQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BD1C066@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAMRcRGTZumBNmKo3tVCjH_fSVm2i_UfiPRRuhbUZM9Q8-hBDAA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BD1C225@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAMRcRGTJXgq94Z4YvrfXTVA4TNJO82k_9VFC_kByAkOfUHNOWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRcRGTJXgq94Z4YvrfXTVA4TNJO82k_9VFC_kByAkOfUHNOWA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D41BF5AE108D0christerholmbergericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ve4nqW/hBucviFtMXf6YxWLxgfus FjvndjA7MHtM+b2R1WPnrLvsHkuW/GQKYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vgyjh1ZjF7QZ9TxZYXs5gb GBdadDFyckgImEgcbDjP1MXIxSEksJ5R4sKT3WwQziJGiaaVK5m7GDk42AQsJLr/aYM0iAho SaxePJcJJMwsUCHRdkcHJCwsUCyx8MEtVoiSEonTy7dC2UkSb189ZwGxWQRUJH7c2MsOYvMK WEtMWdjKArFqM4vEpDm32UASnAKBEt3TbjGB2IwCYhLfT60Bs5kFxCVuPZnPBHG0gMSSPeeZ IWxRiZeP/4EtExXQk/j+dTZUXFHi46t9jBC9CRLfzu9hhlgsKHFy5hOWCYyis5CMnYWkbBaS Moi4gcT7c/OZIWxtiWULX0PZ+hIbv5xlnAUOCmuJc4vNkJUsYORYxShanFpcnJtuZKSXWpSZ XFycn6eXl1qyiREYmQe3/LbawXjwueMhRgEORiUe3gX2X8OFWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifB+lPwW LsSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzXbOX9cCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgsEwenVAOjRWbTvV0S Cz3Ef90rnb0642ugraHWlSSGxe++L5LvZ84zilAoDohvE3tw/oZw7ObX0004o+4fbbNYEjvj j2fszqkxGhI1bX9vP3huyPVb777wgvQAl0b2F/fSrv4XrbmaeW1v0eJclp1B9685fo41CLkT InX1PO+MqypXU2oVFtyXkShSLnyqxFKckWioxVxUnAgAwDpzw8gCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/GPQH5FwqXKRxMXsUbv6Ayw-8pvU>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "snandaku@cisco.com" <snandaku@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: Do we need to mandate identical SDP attribute values?
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: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 09:35:51 -0000

Hi,

…
[Suhas]

Meta Note:
The mux draft has stayed away from offer/answer procedures to avoid ambiguities with offers/re-offers and its focus has been defining generic framework categorizing SDP attributes while performing Media multiplexing

Thus, the case of initial offer applies as well. In that context, on Initial Offer, the offerer will repeat the SDP attributes that fall under IDENTICAL category on all the m=lines that it plans to multiplex.

What is the reason for having different rules for IDENTICAL and TRANPORT? With TRANSPORT you can use different attribute values, because the “software will pick the correct value”. Why not use the software-must-pick rule also for IDENTICAL?


[Suhas]

 Let's try to explain this with example attributes. a=rtcp-mux which is categorized as IDENTICAL and ice-candidates which falls under TRANSPORT category.

For ice-candidates ,the offerer in the initial offer will include different ice-pwd, candidates lines per m=line since it's not sure of the BUNDLE negotiation. Thus once BUNDLE gets successfully negotiated , the software picks the ones from the m=line that is selected for BUNDling. OTOH, if the BUNDLE get's rejected each m=line's individual ice info will be used.

Correct.

For a=rtcp-mux,  in the initial Offer, the offerer must include it in all the m=lines (repeated) since there is no way for the software to decide the intent of the Offerer in scenarios where the BUNDLE gets rejected ( If the offerer didn't repeat the attribute, the software cannot assume the offerer's intention of whether to imply a=rtcp-mux for  the m=lines or the Offerer itself didn't want to perform rtcp muxing )

If there is no rtcp-mux attribute, and if the BUNDLE is rejected (or if an m- line is not accepted into the BUNDLE group), normal SDP O/A procedures apply and there would be no RTCP MUX.

Anyway, even if we do mandate identical attribute values in case of IDENTICAL, is draft-mux-categories clear that it applies already before a BUNDLE group has been created? I believe there were some clarification questions about that also earlier.

Regards,

Christer