Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for keep-alive]

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-09-22 17:09, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 9/22/2011 10:00 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote:
>> |Secondly, I think in those cases a timer on the inactivity |from
>> both parties should be considered to terminate the session.
>> 
>> If the timer is based on RTP inactivity it would terminate the
>> session. If it is based on RTCP inactivity (which many
>> implementations do) it wouldn't.
> 
> There certainly may be use-cases where media in one (or both)
> directions are inactive or DTX-muted for considerable periods of time
> - remember, many of the use-cases (and unknown interesting future
> uses) aren't "phone calls".
> 
> In particular, I have some interesting use-cases bubbling in the back
> of my brain where the data channel remains open at low/no activity
> and the media channels are inactive or non-existant for long periods,
> or where data traffic predominates and media are often inactive.
> 
> 

Yes, I definitely believe you. Which only points that we will need to
consider issues like how much background traffic that occurs just from
having the PeerConnection up and being ready for sending media. Maybe
mandate maximum levels when in practice inactive.

It also has implication I think on the continued media consent. As the
point raised Muthu is that when none sends media, there is in fact zero
entropy in the RTCP RR compound packets. Thus RTCP can't be used for that.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------