Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Unified Plan for SDP Handling

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 17 July 2013 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 11E0521F9D09 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.225
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 bTzZYBJfZVc1 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5A821F9D4F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1Q2c1m0060mv7h058Ue5RX; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:38:05 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1Ue51m00G3ZTu2S3XUe5Hp; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:38:05 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6C86C.5020101@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:38:04 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <51E447C8.1000701@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxsFHn9gVmQv3Z+3mbDBR4Q32qtE5xmksbfbu3rtAw3==g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxsFHn9gVmQv3Z+3mbDBR4Q32qtE5xmksbfbu3rtAw3==g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1374079085; bh=FmySFjbz67z/QV50mf6mv+M6MBDUuL0dSedPKNv8FAI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=doAGp2Zao2QwDWNq3xE1ewUNraoMeThqer5o5wO0fDE2dtylb60wDUHGisKfQ9hec azG91rAtGPHNNcDN15lu3HYShNn1UQ6lJkGUxHRsa9sPTFswR2AYartsfYhJhArkBl HlmF4qKoTg2+pmfkMBzmHPInqyUPEpgK6k6VNsKKVaZTSZcTX8/17EZkfuXuHTcv5n u2904y9vs0cDbFD7R2RZKOBwzPk5cnCVt80E/ubmxvNANsi5q4Wp+5k/ll4u4EbfrG sNdPPFuHjdV7j/v0yEywFFE0OOAc0fUzmo46SvDmPxK+ASs83+uOkf/aRECU1kxTuQ ff/phEUZZzxAg==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Unified Plan for SDP Handling
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:38:29 -0000

Adam,

While I see there can be some value to extending O/A to allow for 
smaller critical sections, I fear that it is going to be very messy to 
get "right". Some messy things:

- Glare between a partial O/A and a full O/A
- Is a partial O/A permitted in a sip reINVITE? Can you have
   an offerless reINVITE where the response contains a partial offer?
   Or can these only be done in UPDATE?
- In SIP, processing of concurrent reINVITEs/UPDATEs containing
   partial SDP updates. This seems to already be a
- How to assign version numbers to the full SDP as a result
   of partial updates
- I'm not sure your algorithm for resolving glare when adding
   streams works in all cases. (More below on this.)

These (and ones I haven't thought of) *may* all be resolvable. But this 
certainly complicates the already complex O/A process - maybe to the 
point that many get it wrong. (I don't want to write rfc6337bis!)

My concern with the glare resolution algorithm is that for it to work 
both sides must realize that glare occurred. And I think there are 
common sequences when one side won't realize it.

I'm reluctant to buy into a scheme that depends on this without knowing 
it it will be implementable.

	Thanks,
	Paul