Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for what bundle should say about demux

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 2B6B521F96C9 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id msL-eLctFLVl for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22e.google.com (mail-bk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4736D21F968D for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id my13so2395986bkb.19 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=cYWFThU9nVnBNUjCqYZbS7cxA/DcQA8fPwNTD+O0Qhc=; b=AsHrRdFXXoCU6HcJ2ozhsj39JO7CzWD+VKlsLZjboV5VbWnPx0PS1gHnhscIZFIN44 wz2BlrdExWoQ/YRydkFHA9B0klQISqyWCsJVsJS2v8ItlAEzOwQAlC10+Riy21186owU 2Mq4Td7+lO49XHUY+pXOhXT6CABB/9azr5pTlpWjPstOb777wSWB4coB/2dxwnRTSmU3 5BDEzCOfniatD+5+lFHJWrI6V2Yliq2za3YV2LPLtPs0yMeD9sR0AGLPZ4ePofK200w3 JutJPmXjhz2yxe7ObM1nmnpHFIdeTVBvmJKIZnguUzxF53G1IpnhEv7l/MST2gstv8Ui 1XFQ==
X-Received: by 10.205.103.67 with SMTP id dh3mr8727342bkc.19.1369385949950; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.3] ([212.5.158.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tc9sm4116303bkb.18.2013.05.24.01.59.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 01:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <519F2BD8.8060803@jitsi.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:59:04 +0300
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin Dempsey <kevindempsey70@gmail.com>
References: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11350F3C8@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <519E80E4.6010904@jitsi.org> <519E9131.2080400@alum.mit.edu> <519F1424.8020803@jitsi.org> <CAMvTgcdpz5dh2zxRGu_xu1QdqsdAapgT-zziT5GzyzyodQxYXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMvTgcdpz5dh2zxRGu_xu1QdqsdAapgT-zziT5GzyzyodQxYXA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3Kg+S0IWu0QfOxi/bF3yQQrr5Auav/d21a279GtnTp8s2kKZVDPZVovfnRrpZntJRGTvG
Cc: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for what bundle should say about demux
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:14 -0000

On 24.05.13, 11:40, Kevin Dempsey wrote:
> Isn't the onus on the answerer to ensure the demux is possible, since it
> is accepting the bundle. Therefore if it doesn't support signalling
> SSRCs or an offerred 'fancy-RFC m-line matching' method, it must only
> send PTs that are tied to a single m-line.

PTs are defined by the offerer. The answerer cannot change them for the
offerer-bound direction (even if it could request different values for
the packets that it, the answerer, is going to receive).

Emil


> 
> 
> On 24 May 2013 08:17, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org
> <mailto:emcho@jitsi.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 24.05.13, 00:59, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>     > IMO the "before the O/A completes" issues are separate from the "after
>     > the O/A completes" issues. I'm still not convinced that the
>     "before the
>     > O/A completes" issues are important. (We have reliable 183
>     responses to
>     > deal with it.) But I'm ok with Cullen using PT to solve that
>     problem if
>     > he thinks he needs to.
> 
>     I wasn't referring to "before the O/A completes" situations. If your
>     peer does not support fancy-RFC m-line matching nor does it provide
>     SSRCs, you have to be able to fall back to PT demuxing.
> 
>     Therefore, all your offers have to accommodate for that possibility
>     unless you know that the offer is going to someone who also supports
>     other mechanisms.
> 
>     Emil
> 
>     --
>     https://jitsi.org
>     _______________________________________________
>     mmusic mailing list
>     mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> 

-- 
https://jitsi.org