IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Proposal: require rtcp-mux (remove non-muxed RTCP; it would be Christmas in July!)

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2015 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6657C1A01E2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 F9N5JZaahW2u for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132B91A014B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicgb10 with SMTP id gb10so5061996wic.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=D66qLm3k114SX1rRqbDQkEGSen1QTObCpJ4nqBrmxhk=; b=AUF3ajH2KH17oYDi1Ba20sl/X4y7raFNnw24oglOpqHafobetEHjCgbZzVP4CJ0tke bGjQd9/o/MCzW4CnZo4EfYL+dXNyvU8yZLBpGnSlI1DJaXa1fFLY3pZr0UbonB25vQAG YiYyWF7ooqbJ3HsIGu9CXExcBvrDew5FBpJSMKYsa97EgK1mFkY94EM1+f/YwAcASkk/ u76RzGyEu0Zj4UEAk9gksTKVryCrMRJuqbGKigvffWQW2lId6GSJ7b6Kgz5TlrEN5zNv JgZONnfrUKPkyEPGqv0FOORsz59N/XwQREe9/BMOrRUY0pBMAUmW8SQhwuzco+v9r+NE c6cg==
X-Received: by 10.180.187.139 with SMTP id fs11mr8847271wic.48.1438284503822; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.24.88 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUGs_+AKNHhaJjB5udr9TZv7oFpJ7h3cJ_ToXUfUC5TEpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGs_+AKNHhaJjB5udr9TZv7oFpJ7h3cJ_ToXUfUC5TEpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:28:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dsapUcjW7HKUZbsqOcZSmhyoCg9=Zxz+k-poKEZDEUP6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c37d22efb86b051c1cb473"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/APouo03gE_ZRdkQOXdyiott7xIQ>
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal: require rtcp-mux (remove non-muxed RTCP; it would be Christmas in July!)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:28:27 -0000

Peter said:

"So is there any remaining reason that we cannot require rtcp-mux?"

[BA] To be clear, you are talking about making RTP/RTCP
multiplexing mandatory-to-use?

The RTP-Usage document already mandates support for RFC 5761.  From Section
4.5:

   implementations are REQUIRED to support multiplexing RTP data packets
   and RTCP control packets on a single transport-layer flow [RFC5761
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5761>].

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
wrote:

> At IETF 93 last week,  Cullen pointed out that he looked into ICE
> endpoints and found that all of them support rtcp-mux.  Inspired by that, I
> went around and asked about a dozen people "would you be OK if we removed
> support for non-muxed RTCP?"  The range of responses went from "I'm OK with
> it if Cullen is" to "yeah, that would be great".  No one said no.  Cullen
> said yes.
>
> For me, removing support for non-muxed RTCP would be like Christmas in
> July.  The amount of gross code in our implementation just to support this
> case is very large, especially considering the very small benefit it gives
> us.  Talking to the developers at Mozilla, it sounds like they have a
> similar cost in code complexity.  I'm guessing every ICE stack does.  We
> could clean up a lot of code complexity in a lot of code bases by requiring
> rtcp-mux.
>
>
> So here's my proposal:  make RtcpMuxPolicy == "required" be not only the
> default, but the only RtcpMuxPolicy available.   All rtcweb endpoints must
> support rtcp-mux.   An rtcweb endpoint would be free to fail if the remote
> endpoint does not support rtcp-mux.
>
>
>
> The whole reason we didn't do this before was because we wanted to work
> with legacy equipment.  But Cullen's claim is that there is no legacy
> equipment that can speak ICE (and DTLS) but not rtcp-mux.
>
> So is there any remaining reason that we cannot require rtcp-mux?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email