[rtcweb] draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-sdp-00 - Legacy Interop

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7638021F8744 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.491
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXicrYtupTYk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E069121F8741 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown []) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 0D2AE1EB843B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:26:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:26:15 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-sdp-00 - Legacy Interop
Thread-Index: Ac2tTUtPbWy6cYmJS3KVgCOuI1zIcQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:26:15 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF01308E45@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rtcweb] draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-sdp-00 - Legacy Interop
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:26:17 -0000


Just looking at the legacy interop examples in this draft at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-sdp-00#section-6. 

I know it states "The ideas included in here are not fully baked into the standards and might be controversial in nature" but don't they actually conflict directly with existing decisions made?

For example section 6.1 implies that the browser could be made to generate an m line for RTP/AVP which it of course will not do. I know that actually this is trick because DTLS-SRTP is still used but does look very messy. Or do I misunderstand something?

I am wondering whether the authors envisage that this SDP is generated by the browser or somehow handcrafted by the application but I assume the browser would have to do this, correct?