Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and DATA CHANNEL - Multiple SCTP m- lines

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 A4D3421F9B6E for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 a7NgEZn9vl2i for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F332B21F9B2C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f316d0000028db-cf-517f794fe2c2
Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 80.4A.10459.F497F715; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:57:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.167]) by ESESSHC022.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:57:03 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and DATA CHANNEL - Multiple SCTP m- lines
Thread-Index: Ac5FeAhS7c9Sd3NUTVufnvM05JFzDw==
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:57:02 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3687B8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5AZX2gwao33BbXzvxjtJi6/DGL xYoNB1gdmD3+vv/A5LFz1l12jyVLfjIFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZRx7/Zy5YAJfxYK7sxkb GB/wdjFyckgImEicfvKPDcIWk7hwbz2QzcUhJHCYUaLj43p2CGcJo0TP/zbmLkYODjYBC4nu f9ogDSICoRJtF/cxgoSZBdQlri4OAgkLC7hJLGhuZIYocZf4v3AzE4StJ9H26zNYnEVAVWLS 9sksIDavgK/E/s7XYDWMQDd8P7UGzGYWEJe49WQ+E8RtAhJL9pxnhrBFJV4+/scKYStKXJ2+ nAniBE2J9bv0IVoVJaZ0P2SHGC8ocXLmE5YJjCKzkEydhdAxC0nHLCQdCxhZVjGy5yZm5qSX G25iBEbAwS2/dXcwnjoncohRmoNFSZy3KL8+UEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVANj RsMbV5t5c7899pyh9dp+8veIiw8rNzqst2Seu6F5ykP72d+1LP8v91qzzEZ+9Q6Vu19qZq7e NE+pgWHe5PcXnr/bdkWj8+f8kOCUJfpK1cqPyjX9OJ7ayUTLcbhqJH/UktnbPedX6PavxfkX s+dlPvrBulatlLnO8M/qvc6BGQe9Sm4yWNWyKLEUZyQaajEXFScCAMy+SM5OAgAA
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and DATA CHANNEL - Multiple SCTP m- lines
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:57:11 -0000

Hi,

>>> In your example there is only one SCTP m- line, and in WebRTC I guess 
>>> it will also be the case, but SDP doesn't prevent you from using 
>>> multiple SCTP m- lines - unless BUNDLE explicitly forbids it, that is.
>>
>> I agree. If we want to support that, then the obvious way (for 
>> DTLS/SCTP) is via SCTP port. That depends on there being a way to 
>> specify the SCTP with DTLS/SCTP. That has come and gone from the SDP proposal for SCTP.
>
> I don't care whether SDP supports it or not, I care whether it makes sense to do it at all.
>
> There's a reason why you might not want to mux SCTP - it's a protocol with multiplexing support.  Multiplexing outside of it is at best a crude thing to do and at worst a way to dilute congestion signals.
>
> I can understand how you can conceive of scenarios where different application layer protocols don't play well together enough that you want more aggressive separation.  I don't see significant value in supporting those scenarios.
>
> That doesn't completely preclude the future use of SCTP port for demux, but it does constrain complexity.

You can use the "built in" SCTP multiplexing support - as long as all usages share the same SDP media description proto value. If you, you need separate m- lines.

Regards,

Christer