Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Relaxing SDP O/A rules?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 04 October 2012 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 05C8921F86AF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 02:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rv+PTmwRHWtT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 02:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1614E21F86D0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 02:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f046d00000644c-91-506d5d46bd70
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 56.27.25676.64D5D605; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:56:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.99]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:56:22 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:56:22 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP: Relaxing SDP O/A rules?
Thread-Index: Ac2he3p3WYPLc1ycRw2otF2KGVpYowAeaRqQ
Message-ID: <96F825286CEAFC40B37C080D4284A44F2C3CD91519@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A1E3AB1@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnUFvw_J2+tvVBoHrzR9ZRkPT-6LhXvbaz_U1P7gqtJ4xw@mail.gmail.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A7BC848@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnV6NcTeh=L_fpkpLv5UpkUSuacmQUtYwNKKwAfcb5+JQA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV6NcTeh=L_fpkpLv5UpkUSuacmQUtYwNKKwAfcb5+JQA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra57bG6AwfqrfBbXzvxjtFj7r53d gclj56y77B5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mro/3+JseAOW8X1rZfYGhhnsnYxcnJICJhI LNi/gw3CFpO4cG89kM3FISRwilHi0K4uFghnPqPEwiu7mLsYOTjYBCwkuv9pgzSICOhKLDr7 gB3EZhZQl7iz+ByYzSKgIvHn6mNmEFtYwFii8/MxJoh6E4k1O9awQNhGEhvuXmABGckrEC6x erUNxKrNTBJLFm4FO45TIFCiZ+0PsJmMQMd9P7WGCWKXuMStJ/OZII4WkFiy5zwzhC0q8fLx P1aIelGJO+3rGSHqdSQW7P7EBmFrSyxb+BqsnldAUOLkzCcsExjFZiEZOwtJyywkLbOQtCxg ZFnFKJybmJmTXm6kl1qUmVxcnJ+nV5y6iREYOwe3/FbdwXjnnMghRmkOFiVxXuute/yFBNIT S1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MLJZKRbqptdVan5cdP2A0t0ajqDTzp4HjwRFbt6fvy1/ /xn173P11q796G7R19w3/f+N5NainUsKvp6yPXl2+/F7Ky+5HPfqidid/kj5qdPmJjXrlsD6 3hl1S93sWBliXhiKTHZ6e1WyYPKtZ5KnmGeEqnsE1e7+uuteTNV9aen5ZotsOx4vn6jEUpyR aKjFXFScCAAFCY3OawIAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Relaxing SDP O/A rules?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:56:25 -0000

Hi,

>>         "As in [RFC3264], an offerer can send an offer, and update it 
>> as long as it has not been answered."
>>
>> That is not true. In order to update an offer (before it has been 
>> answered), one needs to cancel the previous offer.
>
> This might be OK if it were to include the fact that any outstanding offer is implicitly cancelled.

Sure. My issue was about the RFC 3264 claim. It's one of the "relaxes" we would have to specify ourselves.

> Note that it is not clear how the current API could be used to cancel an offer.  Various suggestions include passing a null offer or by setting the local (or remote?) description to a previous offer.

I assume that setting the description to a previous offer, from an API perspective, is the same as updating the offer with something new.

Regards,

Christer