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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 4A5121294BB for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.376 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, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, URIBL_SBL=1.623, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-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 9fOg5ZJwudxO for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (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 30227126579 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v23so128916545qtb.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:25 -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:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hQ1iVkn5YsMrz9+KJ/ULSVxxmnPR/376lKq423K3Lh4=; b=mbPxzckq6UEJoe6QIwSMh92ImEoe2V4ZwD5n3m9SNyENJsKSjV8ErvAYobcM6Yc67d Nl1cJv2qVVaF+0VuRjiNpKtXQNjUHZN2HpXbZPTHodKpAp+YFnXOpjQUHIhmB4tmQQ1b qDzSSbpZkv4dOHn3PDe3Koc52Pf14/mAMMSxYZjsEnvor+jvSezblKHH2bhbiNcM0lYQ 7IMN7eIIPHlmP2gYM0QTb2toNaIOWIddwQ3/RdtXHXGOuVrjlH+t2L48B8xGlLn+SXZg DFvGsG8I207JS4n7CpBVF+d9to+otLf7fEmkgMSSiDvsWQRbjUKvxA1v/42F5IIawBiD pJgQ==
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=hQ1iVkn5YsMrz9+KJ/ULSVxxmnPR/376lKq423K3Lh4=; b=goVWqdcCRctJTxQHpzknCo3ViqWjkocA+FIdM2aPAs20b8QxRy958wNHitO9jCZVHW 0sNm3QGQ4sp184SSF4nB7LDdBBPjY/Q51EOEXy5WaUQRjZvjNg8ELFm+Gu/TTA34Aznv fEPJWe93KDR77hOdd7PuYQWNd9F8ZP6636JrFcmPMXre0UPHwVT+1+MZ1x2sw78NjX3c B3iRqdBrZDyjZpmuBc7DzA71ET10811OoH6v2LDVYBVKxdC9B8JfonBdVL9+XifNhMCs brtTTWayXPH/9tm3dgOwnJUL4g7Doi+6SsI2J9m7nNlaUiKHF5Y6iitLN0cs1C3sFFtB KmEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLmlyBOaBc9eoCf3g8iN9+eKnPj2NyKBHejSffXKINqDJ2W52y/jkNJSAJnkJQulA==
X-Received: by 10.55.20.17 with SMTP id e17mr30324853qkh.96.1484611884210; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-f175.google.com (mail-qt0-f175.google.com. [209.85.216.175]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l65sm17440266qte.45.2017.01.16.16.11.23 for <mmusic@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-f175.google.com with SMTP id v23so128916148qtb.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.55.139.5 with SMTP id n5mr10853187qkd.225.1484611883592; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.147.79 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:11:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBN+MGKD_opEq7bKeafb46o3=jKyMEKLDKQ-Mj8a5eezyg@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> <CABcZeBN+MGKD_opEq7bKeafb46o3=jKyMEKLDKQ-Mj8a5eezyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:11:23 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuqBeE3VkpRp-Leyyf1nzh2wwPG0giwbtcFOwJ8AecG8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuqBeE3VkpRp-Leyyf1nzh2wwPG0giwbtcFOwJ8AecG8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f8426f391cc05463f2372
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/L3zSbUTU1PkETj2d9NjAe96kz7w>
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 00:11:26 -0000

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
Is there a reason why this would ever happen? You use ICE TCP to go through
UDP firewalls when communicating with a server on a public IP. Why would
you ever do only tcp candidates in offer or answer? This is inefficient and
will work worse then offering both udp and tcp candidates. I am all for
options, but they should have some reason for existence. I see no reason
why TCP/anything would ever be used for JSEP offer/answer, unless ICE is
complete and tcp candidate pair is selected.

BTW, we made UDP required protocol for default candidates for
UDP/DTLS/SCTP. I see no reason not to do the same thing for
UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF at least in JSEP. It will only make things interop with
non JSEP endpoints better.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount