Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

On 31.05.13, 22:11, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 5/31/13 6:51 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> Hey Paul,
>>
>> On 29.05.13, 22:57, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> Emil,
>>>
>>> I'm going to reserve judgment on this pending further discussion.
>>> I think this *might* work for CLUE, but I want to be certain.
>>
>> Sure!
>>
>>> I'm concerned with decomposed endpoints that can't manage all the
>>> streams on the same address/port. They will need multiple independent
>>> m-lines and/or bundle groups.
>>
>> This is obviously open for debate but the general idea of No Plan is
>> that: Offer/Answer is used for configuring media and RTP stacks and
>> additional signalling is not the browser's concern.
>>
>> Having extra m= lines, particularly when using BUNDLE, is in many ways
>> just extra signalling.
>
> You may be able to argue that adding extra m-lines into an existing
> bundle is "just extra signaling". But introducing an additional 5-tuple
> is more substantial. It requires configuring a new RTP stack and media.

Indeed, this would require BUNDLE to work.

Emil

>
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
>
>> If you'd like for that signalling to be in SDP, I
>> don't see any problem with it. However it would be best for this extra
>> layer of SDP signalling to appear at either the application layer or in
>> a signalling gateway (that is going to be there anyway).
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Emil
>>
>>>
>>> Further questions:
>>>
>>> I presume that you expect bandwidth in the SDP to be an aggregate
>>> per-m-line, with application specific signaling for bandwidth at the
>>> per-RTP-stream level?
>>>
>>>      Thanks,
>>>      Paul
>>>
>>> On 5/29/13 2:59 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many
>>>> others that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate
>>>> a negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a
>>>> little bit less.
>>>>
>>>> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
>>>>
>>>> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the
>>>> intricacies of multi-source scenarios to application-specific
>>>> signalling, with potentially a little help from RTP.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the
>>>> interoperability requirements that concerned them can still be met with
>>>> "no plan". Of course they would have to be addressed by
>>>> application-specific signalling and/or signalling gateways.
>>>>
>>>> Comments are welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Emil
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>> .
>>>
>>
>
> .
>

-- 
https://jitsi.org