IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC

"piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <piranna@gmail.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 7FA9411E80E9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9mbkvzzBeiCS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF3F21F9A3D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so4154970wes.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bNEc+Kqg0rzAjGb0JSjFDHyNYm+2V81Rj3X0jwlepsY=; b=TfgF5lFa00XqHs0Sx6yVbjNcqwfBxaR62C4POPrxnOA5Cmh0O/55SZpgN/pOhyeA4I CyuPZJB+N2ZO6i93ks6JxbGHvCa3YEVyTQm0rlOA7QW2xdImwAzPhyjVqgnQRe1iE23z yEbEw42XCSRhT4kouIRP80dBBUWws7jZ7P5664zSO9G3E0GtIYd2U3/orDTAcKa2wGjy DQ9LWpyjVIEHMUXJPkilg17Ox/g/HQ0bGrDNgbS/jj69WYC5H09cwfW/wBZOd7v3rC38 EoRza/CZqoDOfqubyB9CPSUx62PCwTF3RJ+uFS90priWrLcxl0uuba2kWddtgYrprKGA xIfg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.9.235 with SMTP id d11mr7860537wib.35.1375119779439; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.195.13.75 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.195.13.75 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnU0U0juKu8y68K-pfkdf9NwQPxH=yM7vt=1EZEg=fxtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfnU0U0juKu8y68K-pfkdf9NwQPxH=yM7vt=1EZEg=fxtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:42:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh1_1FPz4JSaUXTiwgUm5KV6VUDt_dCHnNhDRAkZM__xuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2195afa347f04e2aa0538"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:43:03 -0000

No, this scenario seems more of a beta or maybe an alpha than a polished
1.0 version.
El 29/07/2013 19:34, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@aliax.net> escribió:

> Hi, I initiated a thread [*] about Plan-Unified and multiple m lines,
> but it was moved to MMUSIC maillist (don't know why since it is about
> WebRTC applications design):
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11966.html
>
> Sorry for the cross-posting but at this point I'm a bit lost and do
> not know which is the appropriate group for my concern.
>
>
>
> So my concern is:
>
>
> - Web application with a SIP over WebSocket client running in the web.
>
> - The web user is provided with a conference SIP URI in which there
> are *already* 8 participants (5 of them emitting audio and video and 3
> just emitting audio).
>
> - The user calls, from his webphone, to the given URI to join the
> conference.
>
>
>
> Let's imagine that the JS app knows the number of participant in the
> conference.
> Let's imagine my browser have mic and webcam.
>
>
>
> QUESTION:
>
> How can my browser join the conference without requiring SDP
> renegotiation from the server and, at the same time, being able to
> send audio/video and receive audio/video from others (different tracks
> / m=lines)?
>
>
>
>
> "SOLUTIONS":
>
>
>
> 1)
>
> I tell my browser to generate a SDP offer with:
>
>   - 1 send/receive m=audio line.
>   - 7 recvonly m=audio line.
>   - 1 send/only m=video line.
>   - 4 recvonly m=video line.
>
> (Obviously this is a joke)
>
>
>
> 2)
>
> SDP seems to allow that the offer and the answer have different number
> of m lines (I'm not aware of that but I believe that SDP can do
> "everything"). So my browser generates a SDP offer with 1 m=audio line
> and 1 m=video line, and the server replies with 8 m=audio lines and 4
> m=video lines.
>
> Will my browser understand such a SDP answer with more m lines than
> its generated offer? I assume NOT.
>
>
>
> 3)
>
> My browser generates a SDP offer with 1 m=audio line and 1 m=video
> line and the server too. And later the server sends re-INVITE with all
> the m lines.
>
> Oppss, SDP renegotiation...
>
>
>
>
> SDP is bad for WebRTC. SDP is good for legacy symmetric communications
> in which there is a single-track audio communication and, of course,
> both endpoints emit audio. But SDP is bad for modern RTC protocols in
> which an endpoint can emit tons of tracks to a single endpoint.
>
>
> Do we really want this for WebRTC 1.0 ?
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email