Re: [rtcweb] Basic scenario 'impossible?' to achieve with the actual API

José Luis Millán <jmillan@aliax.net> Tue, 02 July 2013 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jmillan@aliax.net>
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 6064021F9E5A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 CCUqSA00KfGZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144B021F9E39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hv10so2889695vcb.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=raEfUc/1jfQj5vl3N1MUpgk0ZTuOez03rDUrvwvtHJg=; b=Do4Ro/KucYb8axE13G6n0zeQZ9O0jVJeFmX+4b5kjVUhzpyU2eFCRpzwPaUE3TGjSL VIqyqgIPj+V3PD2qBunFzvOWiJS7wOb3nv0/lf3PvNSdoReCwQBBucWpyNSlVgCx2T1D RANvKGv9m23hN6MqQ2Q/jQNe78QYSZCt6AWmAWxF2wA3MOti569QAWeSmnLt8CjEXBkR nK1iAY1BxVHrPNFnrvmJxxtP6rwPqoXWT+2ikDXLqvLdwhK0wZdw3PJ++L2STEruTxaT /Kh8TkLXhI/xX3kUo8huOKFwWsVKJx0m7oqQ/Kn+EDvddtOI8HVNjKCVHOf9G7xfAgiJ rkyw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.40.42 with SMTP id u10mr11621241vek.39.1372782901445; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.49.138 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABw3bnPUTTknKyXvT9SE9fzn1FAiJaZdJf_Yv_3kY002jRcWUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABw3bnOp1jY6-ziR-PFG4-fRTT5zQ5ebQkmp5PhzeS1ew=h98g@mail.gmail.com> <51D2FC3C.8090609@telecomitalia.it> <CABw3bnPUTTknKyXvT9SE9fzn1FAiJaZdJf_Yv_3kY002jRcWUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:35:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CABw3bnNL=wFM_pMco=dv_V6MQABZYqSMRC-dNQHZA+UEVTCa3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTHVpcyBNaWxsw6Fu?= <jmillan@aliax.net>
To: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0129420c31d49c04e089ed13
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkqWcJqrrNfyAao8v4CEzUl1Ya6STxJ/LieJaQitaSL6WPdtBYbv2vd+m/HG2oway1BcTGl
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Basic scenario 'impossible?' to achieve with the actual API
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, 02 Jul 2013 16:35:12 -0000

2013/7/2 José Luis Millán <jmillan@aliax.net>

> Thanks Enrico,
>
> Yes, you are right. I was missing a detail.
>
> Now imagine you are not using your own wire protocol but a standard one,
> where accepting the request doesn't imply accepting or rejecting the SDP
> offer, since SDP has its own methods to accept or reject the call as
> commented before.
>

I meant 'accept or reject the SDP offer or part of it'  where is said
'accept or reject the call'

>
> A --{"action":"CALL","sdp":"v=0..."}-> B
> B --{"action":"ACCEPT CALL","sdp":"v=0..."}-> A
>
> A --{"action":"CALL","sdp":"v=0..."}-> B
> B --{"action":"ACCEPT CALL","sdp":"v=0\r\nm=video 0..."}-> A
>
>
>
> 2013/7/2 Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
>
>> On 7/2/13 6:04 PM, José Luis Millán wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Please, let me know how this normal use case could be solved with the
>> > current API.
>>
>> Just off the top of my head:
>>
>> Audio-only call establishment:
>>
>> A --{"action":"CALL","sdp":"v=0..."}-> B
>> B --{"action":"ACCEPT CALL","sdp":"v=0..."}-> A
>>
>> Rejected audio+video upgrade proposal:
>>
>> A --{"action":"UPGRADE","sdp":"v=0..."}-> B
>> B --{"action":"REJECT UPGRADE"}-> A
>>
>> Alice rolls back and removes local video display.
>>
>> I may be missing something, but doesn't look like rocket science to me...
>>
>> Enrico
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> José Luis Millán
>



-- 
José Luis Millán