Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-00.txt

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 13 July 2021 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C383A1218 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=telurix.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 cG30bT7j4JOS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 DD89F3A1211 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id k16so28222246ios.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t6QEBA8Rb/l5xY9OS5aB1z7oIzIXqzVjlJAZqB0qrqg=; b=kT+NXo+D25Q4hPZlOHG7V9ar0Z4Vzz73mXFqAC0punsBXRWFYl8DM0LUXvHRQKyqgC 5usS6W7ypsqa7EUgq20UCgrWPH1yhF3TIcOcevNw4Di5kTQzzDAWSByrbYiTXztZ734A YSxETE4MgmU+wC1mCY3p24HFkQ5gtafA6pYlY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t6QEBA8Rb/l5xY9OS5aB1z7oIzIXqzVjlJAZqB0qrqg=; b=kHBhvqL7BkudQc8bh5AY0KnQrb8xyfAO7vhS5IDa6x17QDZiY2MptAMKDp+IBIwv5e 5nKsmjfk/MruX1nF9EP8H9ZCbKzvSF3oW/VUHA6hVl38EVXj+EMza7zQLa8PnfBwVMjn Gu3s8NZhSQt6b4Uf3B4H3cad6m1H4dyV0TxJtw8eBwdyWEoEozilFxL0nVBVxPFHkQOE AWdDFMhhffgiPaauYD06lQW9lH5UsAEFa8Ml/ZXxG5IANTVaBTp1faVhGoEdz47mHQzQ UlBaSYNI0zCrorvpL32/PznOScq7nMDX6iuPYAZrcyB3UbubBgwsagdAii3nna6EIXmO YxCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5317B0N/mfqKWHh5+3flA8w4PacThOmIr3YWeOqxA36dJzq2R5M7 5DYy24/I02E40w5OcoQRLqugme4jo6aFkQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsnesep8f0/CB+RzDPK6bWWCWh4FGpkOYpNzcatLJSDbCIz+0juL3LZXbmeKZCCs5I3+pbOg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:501:: with SMTP id i1mr5132871jar.67.1626198909835; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com (mail-io1-f44.google.com. [209.85.166.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l5sm6741887ilv.38.2021.07.13.10.55.08 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id y16so5212439iol.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:cf15:: with SMTP id o21mr4209527ioa.9.1626198908345; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162596540685.23062.11654727411981880816@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALe60zArqmDB1SVkEna_h9gZ7MC=fsio==-Wsb5aJN5Oi-xUdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxswQysOL2SCSKkYvzqWfD9v=mH=dzuYtJkXcU=kRovGHw@mail.gmail.com> <CALe60zDTJ0dGJBsdm3xdeNQgb_u1n20_3FJ-ueipzcFTjcF7VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALe60zBQfM0v2N6j1FoGAZnKCSRFg8Ohu16WV4J16RTqnm09eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxu-mN=0nnpt4dvG0EA4O3Qj0SWLNL5RVjaPPhRxC1O_DA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOLzse2=iY3EOZC8h1QGxBuYK6Baz0WECHKix96g_7dwCjzR_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLzse2=iY3EOZC8h1QGxBuYK6Baz0WECHKix96g_7dwCjzR_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:54:56 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuEH-jBc3CKWUiHbaLja-fYhe==LHX55bDJDk4puHJ3xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuEH-jBc3CKWUiHbaLja-fYhe==LHX55bDJDk4puHJ3xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com>
Cc: Justin Uberti <justin@uberti.name>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004425db05c704f03a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4osdFUY4hT6jzbPgSd8oQSUIfuk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:55:18 -0000

Justin,

Part of the new BUNDLE syntax problem is that the offer generated during
the session is not a valid initial offer, even for the endpoints that do
support BUNDLE. There are m= lines with no candidates and no bundle-only
tags. Even if we are not going to support unbundling in 3PCC scenarios, we
should generate valid initial offers for BUNDLE-enabled endpoints.

At the very least, my suggestion would be, when a new offer is generated
after ICE restart is initiated (either due to the iceRestart option or ICE
configuration changes), to set a bundle-only tag on the bundled m= lines.

Best Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:43 PM Justin Uberti <
juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> wrote:

> Roman,
>
> I see what you are getting at. I suppose that was one benefit of the other
> BUNDLE syntax, i.e., that all offers (not just the first) are always
> understandable by a non-BUNDLE endpoint.
>
> That said, given the adoption of BUNDLE I tend to think that 3PCC to a
> non-BUNDLE endpoint is increasingly a corner case, so it may not be worth
> going to the trouble of trying to fix the SDP syntax and allowing for
> mid-call unbundling.
>
> Note also that it is not clear to me how rtcp-mux would work in a similar
> situation, i.e., when doing 3PCC to a non-rtcp-mux endpoint.
>
> Justin
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 8:45 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 11:35 PM Justin Uberti <justin@uberti.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (To be clear, m= sections that are bundled will continue to be bundled
>>> and will not participate in the restart.)
>>>
>>
>> This is what I thought.
>>
>> How would one unbundle them if an offer needs to be generated for 3PCC
>> (like an offer in response to an empty INVITE)? There is the iceRestart
>> option for ICE to do this. Is there a need for something similar for the
>> bundle to do the same thing? Please see draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04
>> section 7.6 (
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04.html#section-7.6)
>> for more details.
>>
>> Please note that in the case of 3PCC an offer within an existing session
>> for one call leg would be the initial offer for another call leg. After the
>> latest change, an offer within the existing session is no longer a valid
>> initial offer.
>>
>> Thank You,
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>