Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg: external rejection of channel

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 26 February 2014 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 E61FF1A0111 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:27:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 Jas9J045omqj for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499AD1A00D7 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X1S31n00717dt5G568TY7X; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:27:32 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X8TY1n00K3ZTu2S3Z8TY0a; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:27:32 +0000
Message-ID: <530E4E34.4010707@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:27:32 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D1BC516@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJuyhsyk4jO_TS=5khD9ROAx7uYU1YAkCV0Xy4QVUkiqXBJJfg@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826DFFB545@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826DFFB545@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1393446452; bh=cIdfsWAHBtbkWbaB1bpnqLA6vlz0jYBA1Fi+rykZqPI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=jTR8jPSYBABXoEGYdBHPqHP91Vz5+mxdiSkvXJn6luyFZNHx7R5uk/wHvCVB53dwQ Jtzur91VlmO+l6bhbMrxwhP977FaGEQhCuEGlf5YfCSRe6sSyq3tyt5ObjelMfpzaG 25YemKMP1bQWmBtrfpiBl8OrlXGUmaLhyASPzLw0wfXgLBDYT3S+iXxM6wY4z9lR20 jg51YOWd/2RzVgCV5q5oO5ue/ucm5O3AuzNgxzhGrFiOBcd/H+oVVtATbmrJtQU204 6c2xRUNxnm7h1AdgNnWpm0V1fSHdMBuS6tYU8OQlcVeX30zN84fbs7wCRpuKqr0KyQ 4liAKXby1wlZg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/NV1-q5tTBz6jolmsOhnuK7334Gg
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg: external rejection of channel
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Feb 2014 20:27:36 -0000

I would like some clarity about how this interacts with DCEP.

IMO these are not mutually exclusive. But they must be used with care.

So, when a channel that was in the SDP previously then disappears from 
the SDP it is necessary to close the corresponding channel. But channels 
that were opened via DCEP should not be closed.

That also means that one should never mention a DCEP channel in SDP.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/26/14 3:12 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
> Please find my comments inline.
>
> But, there is no text on rejecting a data channel in the SDP answer.
>
> The answer can of course reject the whole m- line, using port zero in
> the Answer m- line. But, how does the answerer reject an individual
> sub-protocol data channel?
>
> Only attributes for "accepted data channels" are included in the SDP
> answer, which indicates back to the offerer which ones are rejected
> (they just aren't there).  This should be made clearer in the text.
>
>     Section 5.1.1 says, regarding the SDP dcmap attribute, for accepted
>     data channels:
>
>     “This line MUST be replicated without changes in the SDP answer, if
>
>                      the answerer accepts the offered data channel.”
>
>     I guess one way to reject would be to simply not include the dcmap
>     attribute in the Answer, and the Offerer then needs to figure out
>     what was rejected based on the stream values not present in the Answer.
>
> Yes.  That is what was intended.
>
> /[Raju] In addition to the above mentiooed cases, if we all agree we
> need to add the following cases in the next draft:/
>
> */1./*SDP offer has no a=dcmap. This has two use cases:
>
> a.Initial SDP offer: no data channel streams (DCS) are open yet.
>
> b.Subsequent SDP offer: Remove all previously opened data channels/streams.
>
> In either case, the SCTP association is kept open (and ICE procedures
> are performed) even when no data channels are in use.
>
> */2./*Creation of new DCS(s) using SDP offer (initial or subsequent)
>
> a.Offerer has to create the data channels locally first by doing
> createDataChannel or equivalent API into data channel stack before
> sending offer.
>
> */3./*SDP offer was rejected
>
> a.DCSs are kept per previous SDP offer/answer. This means DCSs that are
> to be deleted has to be deleted (i.e. calling createDataChannel or
> equivalent API) only after successful SDP answer.
>
> b.If any new DCSs are attempted to be created per new SDP offer, these
> have to be closed now.
>
> */4./*Per
> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#dom-peerconnection-createdatachannel
> createDataChannel() API the ‘external’ negotiation field is per data
> channel.  But this draft only allows external negotiation to be used for
> all or no streams; it can’t be selective. This restriction is also
> needed so that the SDP offer/answer odd/even stream id allocation won’t
> conflict DCP’s TLS role based odd/even mechanism.
>
> Best Regards!
>
> Raju
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>