IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-03.txt - change to draft-ice-sip-sdp

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 02 March 2016 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE8C1A89F5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:51:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 FGIxHQwaQg-q for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:51:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (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 2CB2F1A89E1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:51:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id l127so263812474iof.3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:51:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=lSfz2vXOEG30FwJ9jfXqJ/CAU3ib0+oN1tWIQvA2LpQ=; b=JwNLUrpmazVskSGCJzTKa0d5kgnAMel+cqN4RkdPXeVNWC/OtAbFguDllb4xDX5bwe nZO3e3zKJ+6fQvtqElDkpCPbg73zrxXuKk4VDp6J44HkihKygWpbw8x1oaqiLxLVarfz 34bfBKjuMh3B9/t6h3jjPclJgRChVUOYbAiTf2+l8ShPX+3Asj9pLDxxoWP7XJ6KqGOX aRTa2T+Zu5OqBgvOpfb/Nz8Oh9SxZppp0eP2JRKGu8Trh2q5GLcH9oP/DVWoaWh2y+nD E4vyhhsa8EMd9WjLUMWdy/RyDriqBb4anXM4+cDIKv84IahUGLZAGbiL6dAqq/fJSvEX 9pZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=lSfz2vXOEG30FwJ9jfXqJ/CAU3ib0+oN1tWIQvA2LpQ=; b=C5fKssOMurfDKkfp4jXrdmU/5UcOXCbsER0HxM8yYIkfiW9H5uvFFZjcrkxHQwQ3zq vksyWiGnoQTpsRcB8cXE+r6lUckHe6RTLvJ7+MtDPoPItxD0182iADbwy90f8jgeFQXs F1rI/5Qf+3QT7KPKRsujykuJIv2xRMwJbLaRWvLbmf1anrunjzsFlBRICiOK5syCvN04 0sN7bfA38vT2OUWXgzqTc3Uc3y4Zu6fJWz7Oz2IHEwfSb5jcQ75IcDEDPIcynd23G909 ZWotJkEyrxK8QNx6L/Z4XMqwwZ5Q8aQUdo0Hsk997f5zm5m3iB541Kn6H3uK0CULuhFx QXxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQJQ7y8ILqlIHGSD80pqe3nB/LSjz/Cg6VM+w+2QFPpe5iVCPYazgF95y05x/iVig==
X-Received: by 10.107.41.148 with SMTP id p142mr34679985iop.182.1456933876615; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com. [209.85.223.173]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g67sm14904570ioe.34.2016.03.02.07.51.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id n190so60577959iof.0; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:51:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.157.70 with SMTP id g67mr28144741ioe.38.1456933874516; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.105.77 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:51:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXu4rco0Lx83cO-bwTVCmx7tRHa=FqKs6urT=a6yEH+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E4F44C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxuyt+f8+2h1psdbvVvfAiQOLsKyjL3sq84FHH-uGJZ2Yg@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E4F7BE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnWjTVS+_zsxdXHna064k3KY_v_xCkHX7kdMJ5408WO-UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvV8F=d5gfhy2DqF7NTwSC7nSY2VEJxU3Arx7korqpohw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXu4rco0Lx83cO-bwTVCmx7tRHa=FqKs6urT=a6yEH+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:51:14 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtX2bzG-AXdW25X0pekh2jZo=zHfvcWQFtVCt8TNpofQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtX2bzG-AXdW25X0pekh2jZo=zHfvcWQFtVCt8TNpofQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140b4720d4de0052d12dadb"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Iu9Rxe-fasFpX20WD3NiTGWrYeE>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive@ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-03.txt - change to draft-ice-sip-sdp
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:51:21 -0000

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2 March 2016 at 14:46, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> > I put the port+1 exclusion to stop the practice of putting completely
> > redundant a=rtcp candidate for port+1 which all current implementation do
> > for some reason. I want to stop this practice.
>
> I agree, I also want to stop the port+1 practice.  But I think that
> you wanted something smaller, like better SDP discipline, which I
> disagree with.  Implicit rules suck.
>

Current specification (RFC 5245bis and draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp) both
specify that a=rtcp attribute MUST be present if RTCP is used. Event if
RTCP is multiplexed, no RTP or RTCP candidates are allocated yet due to
trickling, or if RTCP is on the RTP+1 port, a=rtcp MUST be present
according to the current language. With my proposed language, a=rtcp only
MUST be present if there is an RTCP candidate and it is not equal to RTP+1.
Implementations are still free to insert a=rtcp when RTCP is sent to RTP+1,
they are just not required to do so. This actually puts ICE implementation
inline with RFC 3556, which never intended a=rtcp to be inserted all the
time. What exactly do you disagree with here?
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email