Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.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 6C36C1A074E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 VVOuVzknF3Ba for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734B91A073B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13508; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395347106; x=1396556706; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=W1y8enXbnS7K7ftOHghSC+JpuvV58g+Yp2w90hts4p0=; b=RxEFW0SLHVyjOBxWzTrTWdelOQPbZrA79tlOoI0+Je81vZs8eZB6l1D/ 5uDOGRnnqa5x/RepxnL/g5SjgBV2SfMVEWozqgRNwGrz1Ui/vwbixkc3Y dw3o9gQM7bID5tfhcQcsgLKr2QZvlM/equZPZHg2b9j5DOR+wFuWt7P2v w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlAGAKlNK1OtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgkJEO1esIY0/gT2GYVGBGhZ0giUBAQEEAQEBKkELEAIBCA4DAwEBASgHIQYLFAkIAQEEAQ0Fh2UDEAENyEANhxkXjE2CBw0EBgEGhDIEiRqDV4lpgW2BMoYXhR+FSIMtgis
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,697,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="29092880"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2014 20:25:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2KKP5Md024375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:25:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.148]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:25:06 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "'Justin Uberti'" <juberti@google.com>, "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
Thread-Index: Ac8+HSfEqf9sT+k2TCiwilJvB9C34gAORCOAAAJLjQABfviNgAADm0eA
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:25:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CF509A2E.233AC%eckelcu@cisco.com>
References: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF8B463@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAOW+2dsb1GqQmOxf7V6C1Xd_LG12d+kanSm80=kSwmQY=B7GSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-3S1axGPVWB8TF_ALwZ6ExF-D7m3MGsfrkx6EsQNWNpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <03c301cf4431$62655c90$273015b0$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <03c301cf4431$62655c90$273015b0$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [171.68.20.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF509A2E233ACeckelcuciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/B0AEYIqYYCetpYeKGCCRQ7UVbtc
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
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: <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, 20 Mar 2014 20:25:18 -0000

Caveats to be aware of with the tmmbr=0 approach include:

  *   tmmbr=0 implies pause, but it is indistinguishable for tmmbr being set to 0 for other reasons
  *   knowledge of an appropriate value to set for resume is not always available at the RTCP layer (implementation dependent)
  *   theoretically not appropriate to jump directly back to tmmbr=<value prior to pause> even when known

Despite these caveats, I agree with Roni that using tmmbr=0 for pause has worked relatively well in enterprise SIP deployments.

Cheers,
Charles


From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com<mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2014 at 4:41 AM
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com<mailto:juberti@google.com>>, 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard.aboba@gmail.com<mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

Hi,
The pause and resume has the tmmbr=0 option based on RFC5104 (No IPR in the data base for RFC 5104; http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm)  . this works well for point to point case.
Roni

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
Sent: 12 March, 2014 10:56 PM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

Agreed. Aren't there also patent declarations against this doc from multiple holders?

While SDP will likely be removed from the API in the future, the replacement would be a app-specific message sent over websockets, which seems like it would work just fine.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com<mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote:
While I do like the pause/resume draft, having core RTCWEB WG documents (such as RTP Usage) depend on it seems like a bit of a stretch. After all, the document was only adopted last week, and it is a rare IETF WG document that can go from a -00 WG draft to publication as an RFC in under a year.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com<mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi,

at the IETF last week there was consensus in the AVTEXT WG meeting to
adopt the pause/resume draft [1] as a WG draft.

In rtcweb/webrtc we're have the situation that we're discussing so
called "doo-hickeys" as an API surface where the web app (amongst other
things) can pause and resume the sending of a track. This can
be signaled with the direction attribute and a SDP O/A exchange (and the
app pausing/resuming sending of a track would presumably lead to a
"negotiationneeded" event being fired).

But I think we should in addition require the browser to signal it
according to one of the methods in [1] (e.g. TMMBN = 0), and also
understand that signaling (a browser receiving TMMBN = 0 must know that
the other end-point will pause sending).

My argument is that we know that many dislike SDP in rtcweb, and a
likely development is that it will be removed in a later version. My
speculation is that signaling as outlined in [1] will then be used for
pause/resume. If we support this from the beginning earlier
implementations could more easily interop with those later versions.


Stefan

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause-05.txt

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb