IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates

T H Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Fri, 14 September 2018 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 62096130E7E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qF9XfpFdiUaG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15467130E62 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13910 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2018 22:02:05 -0000
X-APM-Authkey: 255286/0(159927/0) 3055
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 14 Sep 2018 22:02:05 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875DD18A046D; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 23:02:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra003.verygoodemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id x9I_5ux-ES2Z; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 23:02:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [192.67.4.33] (unknown [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F50D18A01E5; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 23:02:05 +0100 (BST)
From: T H Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Message-Id: <5763778B-0E13-44B6-AE5A-0BF011873F23@westhawk.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3F500ED2-0E7C-4F2A-B808-6F693892BD18"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 23:02:04 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CANN+akYGaqFe23-0jWM7tj-Mi4x5sKm+TG-9_MSP=jj6_Eg55g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: youenn fablet <youennf@gmail.com>
References: <CAOW+2dtkNjzS0DkD37SD=POtC2Nd6Xe=upyjvVoyBnnMw7qwbQ@mail.gmail.com> <E33840DD-0E89-40C2-9CFF-E1A798007C7B@westhawk.co.uk> <84F2BA5D-3B55-4B75-A8BE-C36852BA251C@gmail.com> <CANN+akYPTyA2tQrPRAKGd=DV4f8DWCFQknMJ8OnywoTdyZtn_Q@mail.gmail.com> <ACBC7AE0-FAB2-4E17-B4F6-9A0750BBEC13@gmail.com> <CANN+akYGaqFe23-0jWM7tj-Mi4x5sKm+TG-9_MSP=jj6_Eg55g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/9ldq4--hlqTTQgaHkDEGF_d-R6o>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:02:10 -0000


> On 14 Sep 2018, at 22:20, youenn fablet <youennf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le ven. 14 sept. 2018 à 13:01, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> a écrit :
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 12:49 PM, youenn fablet <youennf@gmail.com <mailto:youennf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > To return to the initial question, in the sendonly/town-hall meeting scenario, what is the configuration that mandates exposing host candidates? How common is it?
> 
> [BA] Assuming that WebRTC is used instead of streaming media, the scenario often involves communication within an enterprise network, such as a group, divisional or campus-wide company meeting. getUserMedia is only called when an employee needs to ask a question (or sometimes questions are pre-selected).  Employees watch the meeting at their desks.
> 
> In these scenarios, media often flows directly on the multi-segment corpnet between host candidate pairs without a relay.
> 
> Is the sender a web browser?

In the Drone case no. 
In the Town hall case probably not - there will be some sort of camera/MUX device if there are more than a few users.

> Is the sender sending the media to each receiver or are there some receivers acting as senders to other receivers?

In the problematic scenarios I'm looking at things are either senders or receivers, never both.

T.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email