Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive?
Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Wed, 09 March 2016 15:28 UTC
Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.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 EEEA412E161 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:28:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1GEeqVKhlIyI for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c: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 D388112D72F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k1so59007119vkb.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:11:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=pW3zTxn4un9K/ZoPHY4lCbRiFMO0+gczD4PmTCu+Ht0=; b=rpsIuMaM+tqZ+qaX4MRQ8t0+PtqG1thYdNx9nbCetDhfrrchfgzDRedx6aGqidCMXI ANrYjt6nmChsniDYqJNsExOas+AOMA9p9opyVb1Ck6gjwCQ9G9uUeaWt51X8zYreojYR HacKwmZrDLeddCWhGu104xq/zREMLvB3PctPSH8wfZEkvqZ1xBMd7nz53Y9PBVWwgSHA 9lywRhgE9x3j9RXFlSOKvS9t3hSu+uElEyMmbjX1yGC/pCiUXru1TKe4tQv2M6nih1D2 CzsLNof+/jOeBSYMl2MMoNwtQYmWP0GraFX2qe+Hs0c73IOdYiEmvhg/tMxrTwWS+oEt aG8g==
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=pW3zTxn4un9K/ZoPHY4lCbRiFMO0+gczD4PmTCu+Ht0=; b=AXodJccNO6DRc4lcwrdP29DUgxRlErUc1wqJ1CDf3U/yOL9JJ2gf4TZXq7nv6RdAy6 nianA6Cfi8SpzAVG6oDjVdbVWvlIgMRDy+7ycQiHAFpdJ88PiDDSaq7cH/X3bEqKoXNU ShseY0vtRGxGXhdivhOt5qMLtEBwryMFYaphKOCexU0cz4HQCp05fnWY9M2tuEGd1S2U 0VtF4y0QfiZPFscyxi/vDYZ8HdTk1Vn9iSEMple757ePxvCxQLSGTjNzcjQ2M5hG0FqG eDM3EPRvkl5iYfeUGy3YEWSev3z0MhDYmD4Bc2OVpq59e3NZd6kk12rYrdnbnyiRM6yB O/Bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK3tbxoWBqcW0Wn5CvQBlvwt4ezeFU+Vj2U+plgbvcCFS8k164F6qVDPGVx96XKA+W0zFzAXmnvvvikhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.164.13 with SMTP id n13mr31084686vke.64.1457536269335; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.176.66.199 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:11:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E9FE5B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CABcZeBNsJkqGcU3Z=eekP4ntj7r3WMz6YOSiFt=u+HdDH2Zk3Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E5A4E2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBOGpguqkEeUoH35R2S_fOU=eGWgG7r5gmH3T_UHXqRRjg@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E5BBC1@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBOQKX+LKu1vafq227wv4sy+AApmixGB4fb7wTeuByYTMQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E5C345@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBPNOCTT1ahJsH0OSaOwFnLicFSjHWUbAXxQ3sFu5tUdjA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E7236F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBNtmfjrETCerCu=A5BXt5HRCG+nO4KZ4ze3sBEeRNnX_A@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E7444F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBNvsUNxrX5mx3E19St9CGf7s2vUmoyKAUmWbOw9s7jXfw@mail.gmail.com> <56DE4F09.3030902@cisco.com> <CABkgnnWPJSGmYHbds09iL+NOibm2_x-gE=5YcsS0Wf4tZtyE7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2ds7bCmLCxmaGyOgNd2P-b3FdBNxhqVC7ucWcQhmcZ+R2g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV_ChBkVh+yHLpCwvqc99odBLVVyf2L_dAJt-sWp66Nfw@mail.gmail.com> <D30448AA.55C1%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E9FE5B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:11:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGTt2rJEOo5ehq8ySbUWjcBqYHQ5hy8KGYB8XzTPM44QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11416af894c45a052d9f1b47"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/UsMQN5Qp-dRjQxjo2oiBFpIb4IA>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive?
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: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:28:14 -0000
Was ice-options=rtcp-mux-only considered as a candidate to say this. Since we are discussing the rtcp-mux-only option the ICE context , ice-options could be an option and it has O/A semantics clearly defined. On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > Any opinions? > > If I remember correctly, it was mainly Roman who didn't want to use > a=ssrc. However, it does seem like a straight forward (and most backward > compatible) mechanism. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer > Holmberg > Sent: 08 March 2016 09:19 > To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; Bernard Aboba < > bernard.aboba@gmail.com> > Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? > > > Hi, > > We could update 5761, by adding an ³ICE Considerations² section, where we > say that a=rtcp-mux and RTP candidates only indicates exclusive mux. > Obviously, we would have to assume that RTCP candidates won¹t be provided > later (using trickle). > > Another alternative would be to go back to the original suggestion of > using a=rtcp:0 (zero port value) to indicate exclusive mux. That would work > also for non-ICE. In that case we would need to remove usage of > a=rtcp:0 for trickle ICE, as previously discussed. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > On 08/03/16 08:21, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 8 March 2016 at 17:03, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [BA] Since this relates to ICE, addressing it in RFC 5761bis does not > >>make much sense. > > > >I didn't suggest a -bis, which implies an overhaul, just a small patch. > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >
- [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Martin Thomson
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Martin Thomson
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive? Christer Holmberg