Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No Plan)

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 6/3/13 5:36 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> On 04.06.13, 00:16, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> I don't understand why we would be talking about translating from one of
>> these plans to another. AFAIK they are *alternatives*, and that we will
>> at some point agree on one, and that will be the only one implemented.
>
> It has been pointed out that some existing non-WebRTC endpoints expect
> to get SDP "the Plan A way". Cullen asked how such devices could be made
> to communicate with "No Plan" browsers. This was my answer.
>
> Personally I haven't come across such devices so I can only speculate
> about the reasons why they work the way they work. Still I don't see why
> they shouldn't be able to talk to WebRTC browsers ... hence my answer.

They clearly *don'* expect to get it the Plan A way (bundled).

I accept that there must be a variety of things that employ multiple 
(unbundled) m-lines, each on its own 5-tuple with one RTP stream.

But that is not Plan A. You can view it as a special case of what I just 
responded to you on another thread (now on mmusic) where one end 
requires that a new media stream be on a different 5-tuple than those 
existing.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Emil
>
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>> On 6/3/13 1:28 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>> Hey Cullen, Paul, all
>>>
>>> On 31.05.13, 22:19, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>> On 31.05.2013, at 12:23 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Certainly. Could you please post the SDP that you would like to see
>>>>> translated in a way that's compatible with "No Plan"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Emil
>>>>
>>>> We can start with the SDP in plan A
>>>
>>> The example in "7.3. Many Videos" looks like a good start:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a-00#section-7.3
>>>
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>>      v=0
>>>      o=- 20518 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.1
>>>      s=
>>>      t=0 0
>>>      c=IN IP4 203.0.113.1
>>>      a=ice-ufrag:F7gI
>>>      a=ice-pwd:x9cml/YzichV2+XlhiMu8g
>>>      a=fingerprint:sha-1 42:89:c5:c6:55:9d:39:f9:b6:eb:e7
>>>      a=group:BUNDLE m0 m1 m2 m3
>>>
>>>      m=audio 56600 RTP/SAVPF 0 96
>>>      a=mid:m0
>>>      a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
>>>      a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000
>>>      a=ptime:20
>>>      a=sendrecv
>>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>>      [ICE Candidates]
>>>
>>>      m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98
>>>      a=mid:m1
>>>      a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
>>>      a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1
>>>      a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
>>>      a=sendrecv
>>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>>      a=bundle-only
>>>      a=ssrc:11111 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9
>>>
>>>      m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98
>>>      a=mid:m2
>>>      a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
>>>      a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1
>>>      a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
>>>      a=sendrecv
>>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>>      a=bundle-only
>>>      a=ssrc:22222 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9
>>>
>>>      m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98
>>>      a=mid:m3
>>>      a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
>>>      a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1
>>>      a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
>>>      a=sendrecv
>>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>>      a=bundle-only
>>>      a=ssrc:333333 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9
>>>
>>>
>>> An offer generated by a "No Plan" browser in this case would look
>>> something like this:
>>>
>>>      v=0
>>>      o=- 20518 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.1
>>>      s=
>>>      t=0 0
>>>      c=IN IP4 203.0.113.1
>>>      a=ice-ufrag:F7gI
>>>      a=ice-pwd:x9cml/YzichV2+XlhiMu8g
>>>      a=fingerprint:sha-1 42:89:c5:c6:55:9d:39:f9:b6:eb:e7
>>>      a=group:BUNDLE m0 m1
>>>
>>>      m=audio 56600 RTP/SAVPF 96 0
>>>      a=mid:m0
>>>      a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000
>>>      a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
>>>      a=ptime:20
>>>      a=sendrecv
>>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>>      [ICE candidates]
>>>
>>>      m=video 56602 RTP/SAVPF 97 98
>>>      a=mid:m1
>>>      a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
>>>      a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1
>>>      a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
>>>      a=sendrecv
>>>      a=rtcp-mux
>>>      [ICE candidates]
>>>
>>> I. Talking to legacy
>>>
>>> In case you need to talk to an actual legacy (as in widely deployed SIP)
>>> endpoint, the above would translate into a regular two-stream call. Both
>>> Plan A and No Plan would lead to essentially the same result (if we
>>> accept that older endpoints won't throw an exception at the sight of 4
>>> m= lines) so not much to discuss here.
>>>
>>> II. Talking to Plan A style endpoints
>>>
>>> If you need to talk to a Plan A endpoint you basically have the
>>> following options:
>>>
>>> 1. You use JavaScript to prettify the "No Plan" SDP and turn it into
>>> something that looks like "Plan A". Not my favourite option, but I am
>>> sure some would like to use it. Maybe vendors of Plan A equipment would
>>> even distribute JS libs that do this. It would basically all come down
>>> to generating one ssrc attribute and two additional m=lines and
>>> appending this to the existing SDP string.
>>>
>>> 2. The application retrieves SSRCs from the browser, adds additional
>>> application-specific signalling to it and then sends the whole thing to
>>> a signalling gateway. The gateway (which you would also have with Plan
>>> A) would convert the SDP into what it needs it to be.
>>>
>>> The application specific signalling can look like this:
>>>
>>> {
>>>       "firstStream":
>>>       {
>>>           "SSRC": "11111",
>>>           "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9"
>>>       },
>>>       "secondStream":
>>>       {
>>>           "SSRC": "22222",
>>>           "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9"
>>>       },
>>>       "thirdStream":
>>>       {
>>>           "SSRC": "333333",
>>>           "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9"
>>>       },
>>> }
>>>
>>> 3. In Plan B, section 3.1 talks about generating "Plan A" style SDP with
>>> the help of .content properties. If browser vendors are willing to
>>> implement support for this then I suppose it would be a third option.
>>>
>>> III. Talking to other WebRTC applications
>>>
>>> This is the fun case and the one we should be most concerned with. Let's
>>> imagine that the answerer needs to add a fourth video stream. To make
>>> this work endpoints would need to do the following:
>>>
>>> a) with Plan A and draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add:
>>>      - send application specific signalling to the offerer
>>>      - have a new O/A exchange
>>>
>>> b) with Plan A:
>>>      - have a new O/A exchange
>>>      - potentially risk glare with some impact on user experience
>>>
>>> c) with No Plan:
>>>      ... nothing
>>>
>>> I am intentionally not going into how all plans would require additional
>>> metadata that would place SSRC 1 left and 2 right as I don't think this
>>> conveys any meaningful differences.
>>>
>>> Comments on the above are welcome. We could also move to another
>>> scenario from the Plan A draft, if you believe that 7.3 is not
>>> representative enough.
>>>
>>> Emil
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>