Re: [MMUSIC] it's time to expel SDP from our lives

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 14 June 2017 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 0CAA7129BF5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=aliax-net.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 etib1JRJWRAt for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (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 A4580129C04 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id o83so88741460lff.3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3DaZ9e+GnorO9gR90ZfcIKb98rPDNi9UZTmes84e/pY=; b=1KPXm+xrdiF7lVy+qUMal7hCM8WYobREoDe8tnf6J59720twv/6QhTZS6XchBjQw7G K5eWFSsg/zhOk69MAj/D6aisbTgGFvIJoWR5Xvnhqxrmw/1yG9o4mPH+qgYpYFhq5EaO p1sUh4RAttB0SecAaFlmFVIh0tM9HQ1i4Iqf5YVccWz3Jv9LIj3hYNDdXFIcrq0vaCij pbOYvUva8T2OTedi4xBKcc1CDi3Aq+uoP+bh9nS9wNpkex8UtefVJtROl8X3VlW75ADA 5cfPwkH28mi7RioK7dML+nglMpo7nGDv/7VhbVJOBDAtBYOt6b30+aZYFoiHf99xaWA4 PscQ==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3DaZ9e+GnorO9gR90ZfcIKb98rPDNi9UZTmes84e/pY=; b=j/oAjtZ63NskPcNK6cT6OerPixKMaIEbUBIhAcosKrYNru1/8tzLxzzcTAyaIg1jzy W4IumUTOht/U6SmryCkN4hzAxhl4oJP4RiOZAYw/aTDM6+/7ue+IZJJ8xQztMdFDIaOI VhV3J05UNGG0q6jApA7O1UR78AooCVd8Txj6ZZ7z79SPfiglbFCie+df0ZOahM+SxXJb h7Atz/CWJAPRWFThBLcUIm17p8adhCaB84vpD/PgcdVl4D/y73hKpOwyLGbaO5IxX3vl u0RUCZAWingU6HHTXuvAswo1fPeKiZsV4Td7I7zul/dDzXhalRX4zZV0oKSl959vKMFo TAjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzagB4ZlJTxcYjNyoYlIjkKHQnSlPdTLBKQG97XisvFLXuyptAq y0/NllmJtKnoujbsOJqQAs6YUSPVLrRI
X-Received: by 10.80.165.108 with SMTP id z41mr520388edb.60.1497436872863; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.135.87 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dtgNCDACJxtSt_jeZYiscurJDYQAvNC2RMVOFf1R+Mr5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBMd2BZgyeFnqafTVyGga4FMoK0xJkPCv0y_wvmBWsg+xg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvwgvm3Q4HsCYsewZjRS9ty_g34n9+x87vfLW4Omcm8mw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfk_Oz5Vj5xxbO9v1XgGHyBYyzCqg1jp1Mv_aW0noWMchA@mail.gmail.com> <402e9b86-e28f-e2ab-d3b3-2f34e9dd0bff@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegf=4ANANnM_14Z4QwnS2LiUxmDniyicL56X635ERq5WpkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dtgNCDACJxtSt_jeZYiscurJDYQAvNC2RMVOFf1R+Mr5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:40:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmmSWHrseqf14Y4pMMX0B9ymY8_XdG3WR5thqSwfhUWKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/fHlbF26w1ZM1Y3xx81E-JeW9IYc>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] it's time to expel SDP from our lives
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 14 Jun 2017 10:41:17 -0000

2017-06-14 1:32 GMT+02:00 Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>:
> sometimes it is because their builds on all platforms utilize the same SDP dialect (typically the dialect utilized in the webrtc.org implementation).
> [...]
> one thing I have not so far encountered is an a situation where there has
> been a need for standardizing a non-SDP signaling mechanism.

Just an observation about this: at least in WebRTC land, one cannot
just decide whether to use SDP or not, he just needs to use it (the
browser generates SDP blobs and consumes SDP blobs) but the fact is
that, in complex scenarios others than P2P audio/video calls (for
example SFUs), current vendors are doing very funny things that makes
me worry about how the adoption of SDP in WebRTC is:

I've seen that some SFU vendors (and their corresponding client's
logic) just use SDP for the initial "connection" between clients and
the SFU server. Usually there is just a single in-the-wire SDP O/A in
which ICE and DTLS parameters are exchanged, so the transport is
established. Some vendors also include some hardcoded m= sections with
various hardcoded SSRCs for audio and video which don't represent a
real remote audio/video, but a future one. Then, when a real
participant joins the same conference, the SFU signals it out-of-band
to all the others, and rewrite RTP packets (SSRC, PT, etc) from the
new participant to satisfy one of the already hardcoded SSRC values in
the already negotiated SDP O/A. When a participant leaves, or pauses
his video, etc, that's not signaled via the SDP mechanism but
out-of-band. Some other SFUs scenarios send out-of-band info to
participants and those locally mangle the remote SDP (for example, to
include a new SSRC or m= section) but there is no a real SDP exchange
from endpoint to endpoint.

So, IMHO this clearly shows the "hardcoded" way in which current
complex WebRTC scenarios make use of the SDP mechanism to make the
browser's SDP engine happy while still avoiding SDP renegotiation and
SDP signaling features as much as possible. Said in other words:
people try to avoid SDP and its semantics as much as possible.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>