Re: [MMUSIC] JSEP Issue #394: What appears in m= lines.

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Den 2016-12-22 kl. 18:30, skrev Eric Rescorla:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Magnus Westerlund
>
>     Okay, I agree that having any rules for what you should offer here
>     based on what the actual outcome is not the best idea here. I think
>     the rules should be based on capability and intent. So if you only
>     are going offer TCP candidates, then you clearly should use TCP/…,
>
>
> I'm going to push on this. If we've already agreed that mismatches are
> normal, why should we do that? Wouldn't it be better to just effectively
> deprecate this field?
>

So, my main argument for including any rules for how to set it, would be 
that the this part of the PROTO field still has meaning outside of 
WebRTC context. There one may actually have it to match what is goind to 
be used. Thus, it can provide some guidance to gateways on what to 
expect. It might be that we should actually set it to UDP for those not 
supporting ICE/TCP, and to TCP for the ones that supports both UDP and 
TCP. That would still provide information to the gateway.

I think simple rules based on implementation capabilities for how to set 
it are better than no rules. Especially as it would carry some 
information, not zero, which is the result of no rules.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------