Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 18 October 2013 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78DC21F9E63 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.874
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.275, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3VEtF9R+C8rs for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E6821F9E6A for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7fcf8e0000062b8-07-5260c0b4bbd4
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 99.77.25272.4B0C0625; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:01:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:01:40 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
Thread-Index: AQHOy78hb3Ik+8z8hUC3/ehEXYIlrQ==
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:01:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6WAwlBBns/6Fp0TGazWPuvnd2B yWPK742sHkuW/GQKYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyug7epulYLtQxYML19gaGM/wdTFyckgImEgc vPyZHcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAUUaJU7sXM0I4Sxgl5j+/ztTFyMHBJmAh0f1PG6RBRCBd4uDV Y6wgNrOAusSdxefYQUqEBTwlLp/mADFFBLwkLm4Vg6jWk7h3disTiM0ioCoxdek2sIG8Am4S /+96QyyawCRx9PpJFpAaTgF3ids7f4LVMwKd9v3UGiaITeISt57MZ4I4WUBiyZ7zzBC2qMTL x/+grjGQeH9uPjOErS2xbOFrMJtXQFDi5MwnLBMYRWchGTULScssJC2zkLQsYGRZxchRnFqc lJtuZLCJERgHB7f8ttjBePmvzSFGaQ4WJXHej2+dg4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFw SjUwTnW/90jnY6+X5UWpjJ8L5M+Vz8tUXv97uca37KdfQpZODD3pm6QyZ6c90z7bHe41DJd8 Ni+vz1Q+o+vkeJfB/WLRkx3ir7/dmqURNSn+YpmoV0fCN8e8sMMlqf3cB/8rXpXe6i5tq9xZ clup7/Vm7XCbKTlvtvyp21WS5Pknf7XGb+m013EZSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAxM04hlECAAA=
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:02:02 -0000

Replacing UPDATE with INVITE, that is...

Sent from my Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S

Christer Holmberg <> wrote:

Hi Cullen,

My question is how it would be done when creating the new PC, so I don't think replacing UPDATE with REPLACE would solve the problem :)

Also, the usage of a new PC can also be used for serial forking. But, that is not the issue.



Sent from my Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> wrote:

Perhaps in the parallel forking section, we should replace UPDATE with "INVITE with replaces" . Would that work ?

Alternatively we could just remove the parallel forking section.

On Oct 16, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:

> Hi,
> Any comments on this issue? I’d like to have some e-mail discussions before Vancouver.
> I’d also like it to be listed as an issue – unless, of course, I have missed something, and it really isn’t an issue :)
> Regards,
> Christer
> From: [] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: 30. syyskuuta 2013 11:08
> To:
> Subject: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
> Hi,
> JSEP talks about the usage of multiple PeerConnection to support forking, i.e. for each new forked leg (SIP: early dialog) a new PeerConnection is created.
> As has been indicated, as each new PeerConnection will have its own set of address properties, ICE properties etc, so a new Offer will have to be created and sent to inform the remote about the new properties.
> So far so I good.
> I also assume that the same camera/mic/etc sources are connection to each PeerConnection, so the number of m- lines in the Offer of the new PeerConnection should be the same.
> However, according the 3264, the ORDER of the m- lines also need to be kept the same.
> So, my question is: how can I ensure that the order of the m- lines in an Offer for a new PeerConnection is the same as in an Offer for an old PeerConnection?
> Regards,
> Christer

rtcweb mailing list