IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Why do we need rtcp-mux-exclusive?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 08 March 2016 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D581CDD64 for <mmusic@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:36:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfc.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNQiXUT_gV3c for <mmusic@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 524071CDD63 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m184so13064506iof.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:36:04 -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=EeXQz8AIhj0yTe4hiysjZY5KiMk0ilnhrIN4TtXXGZ8=; b=EboER1SBK8YTLoH3kbJPw1vrFVfxyaGAHua8RZkSFfZ9QI5YZcOazr2fGivM1VmCyZ zp7NSWlNBmtJ54qHBHk6EeiIv1ElJuVd8Mgwe5LWx66fClhlbUmJrzZ1w74ef/ZBv2yS MUebB5QxzxdBLGUXSrXweDNPlkFi2ad2gNl6Jq2avz0MbfoD6ja9AqzSkegT6gSUKOmE vwXCToWSUxjWOhspUx/HHk93q9HTInAb/CkmISJSYePLUCwAZa1OtzqfYsr1yHFzGh+I JU6+LIg0LQO8mETGldp9nL/SlbdlgfGBB49xiPvXgtvUlZdxhvavvL6nHxDAZ3pjxJCn UZOw==
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=EeXQz8AIhj0yTe4hiysjZY5KiMk0ilnhrIN4TtXXGZ8=; b=ggTeA/0oX3e7aj8TkNhwKN8223zjv6xe8//mWIJsnsQQIYDzjU5rqFpS3s8Mw/LPgr eQ/8r4G9ctcQE+ZiDsAhmQzc6nsbMigTcl4VyoL/qsuUaaeHA9AFyTpOXFog0nxGUlbf RmxEV0MSE6ebHSiDF3V9LrGNy1ga5i6nVXEmvy2gw4x8UlR8+lQMN47KeyfCMyu+AVE8 kpN6qWJLDbuxOplPNBJVvT5UQ8oI2Sug+2D/zqhzUBwcgKsqrBJ4pfdFE7J5h9ms4eC4 oVZ10o26sYLyDrwwGW+3+yWEYP0ch10VivmmdjmUXt4DD1zB2QH3LsprQkk1UpqWgmOR VJwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLzkDjthW52UDQ73joDqswNTNtPM7+Jk9nSN+3iVRYEx3bgG9Kr8vBFCc3j0vb/zQkRAHrcZs5uoHKvoA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.131.27 with SMTP id f27mr26233044iod.190.1457411763627; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.43.5 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:36:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56DE4F09.3030902@cisco.com>
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>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:36:03 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWPJSGmYHbds09iL+NOibm2_x-gE=5YcsS0Wf4tZtyE7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/k74NlNLQVJC2bXc3poHIvQ5M1Ns>
Cc: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
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: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 04:36:05 -0000

On 8 March 2016 at 15:03, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote:
> Sure. In the mean-time, we would like to hear from more people on this. As
> Christer noted, there were several people in favor of adopting this work
> when we asked in mid-December 2015, so we would like to understand if
> anything has changed since then.

I think that Eric is really just taking my earlier email to its
logical conclusion.  The attribute isn't properly justified.  I see
three options:

You might be able to justify it on the basis that it allows
intermediaries visibility into what is going on so that they can avoid
allocating a second component, or maybe some other variant of what
Christer and I discussed.  The draft grows.

Or, you could say that this is just an update to RFC 5761 and you want
to allow for an offerer to offer without RTCP on separate
candidates/port.  That could be a very small RFC.  The draft becomes
tiny.

Or, you could simply conclude that we're going to require mux in some
implementations and live with having no RFC that "defines" that
behaviour.  The draft dies.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email