Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 19 July 2011 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 8C0FC11E8094 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 jULAhlB-JC0Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E207311E807F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so395650fxe.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.55.8 with SMTP id s8mr12130379fag.141.1311094517905; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porcinet.local ([2a01:e35:8a55:abc0:21e:c2ff:fe1b:2fe]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm75390fay.21.2011.07.19.09.55.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E25B6F2.1030607@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:55:14 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; bg; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com> <CAOJ7v-0zHWjP43G_ncnDtcxA5+VyypF=ixAKdrqz_rh4yZYD7A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0zHWjP43G_ncnDtcxA5+VyypF=ixAKdrqz_rh4yZYD7A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:55:23 -0000

На 19.07.11 17:20, Justin Uberti написа:
>  
> 
>     - It is the what the implementation that exist mostly do
>     - Signaling protocols that exist support it, no extra functionality
>     - People are used to the concept
>     - It minimizes the difference to legacy.
> 
> 
> I agree that existing implementations will need to change to support
> this. However, is there a large enough base of deployed endpoints that
> support a) multiple RTP sessions and b) the other RTCWEB constrains
> (ICE, etc) to make this a significant concern? 

You are referring to SIP/XMPP clients using RTP and ICE, right? Well,
given that this has been IETF's default way of handling RTC for the past
few years I would assume that there are a bunch yes.

Besides, if we ever make the ICE part optional (like XEP-0177 does for
XMPP) then we'd have media-layer interoperability with any VoIP client
out there and this would definitely be a great win.

Emil

-- 
http://jitsi.org