Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05 - Subsequent Offers

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
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 18CE721E8155 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.788
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 HHu8RGVVGhYf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D7621E805F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id db12so69916veb.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:30:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+ydNCEr1y/d+nG/+0010qNjYS58qW1SrQtxj5oUF7q0=; b=XC93sAYLxQkG/uA7ACgwpVKutIYmvyIypjqbl5KksyBjUV7SOgEV+ZHUNePV7fzNK7 m+F+HVZlS7KxQnqFqdcZybYtbVIz5r3PS4HqtuHHGD7ChvKHsDVVbD3LU+Iq/sCGKLdJ S2OZlHpIaWmze/iTRetAtttAfKfPGyQg3qTZ5fly9yQMUAORKjnfWGtQ8qAe2PhK4xZo zsDmRRCABJ8myo5zYQ8JwrTnDNtkucOGwrwr/FLQrqlKSeBiCPdxANLZDsyjSKSoFRCE E0buRDyWUAR9FEzVkoCqPDw0y6Nd1FfN9KLYZ7T2aaLBrCvG2s5u6w/61jNZ4M2MWokn G/wg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+ydNCEr1y/d+nG/+0010qNjYS58qW1SrQtxj5oUF7q0=; b=CDcW6T6FSvLrMsvOqOT65Vlwu2e+WvzO/F22Gw8lelP2RBUTro4VA0T+yimuvdHeNL p5sFQdaOqyHPGNLlA9LjIJTN1ihwLZa8hXBMwMRUX7q1mxpmweLtdoHlwZc2degcljTr O880FoWWa58v/XV6QniCqUud+OibyExgC+Aa+ym8vt8p2+12U3JAEyw7VH8sITV6W48a FzhUjv6oUtUrbeoyfV8bAegs/Cp+IsqW5YDloSlzeWmffzJD+YqlGzGV9e/qNPnpoeCd sZ8AmJpfykuvOv6ZTm2uJ51OWMonqgBXNuQCiglxB9FQH1bxPGVUkp6EyA6LhbRQfiP+ 50dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpX7B2RQgtpZV9aunjV9CuU9wk++pv6iwP5Z7iNgSclLNY+lrf+93LlWcSYRwMF9b2+o4KSF9LWMovq7Mfx4PjxW3jZtQPYeZdyS9PeIZy65MirrtzYjYknjOwDFVwi8VeyAQPnQY9mPAOq1ruI6XilPEdie+XOR7VwaMe+zyeOPphF9I3lygpPAg6T5K5FI3wlUQj
X-Received: by 10.52.32.131 with SMTP id j3mr184374vdi.62.1383773412324; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:30:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:29:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPms+wQMN9+=wy5EJX0LUwZQRrJk2HebbJOADhhGeQpm2jzO8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <527420FC.3070805@alum.mit.edu> <CAOJ7v-3tMLV0Zs5po_1daWuVaMPtrZK0g+L=kzPnLd0jGtfRXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPms+wQMN9+=wy5EJX0LUwZQRrJk2HebbJOADhhGeQpm2jzO8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:29:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0UmZcuYbEzY5Z5WhFw7x_qP2pgntWEY_3byhNWTJqbnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Procter <michael@voip.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51d204ab10ed404ea88daa0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05 - Subsequent Offers
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:30:22 -0000

Yes, it would. But I think the problem still exists for applications that
don't use partial offer/answers.


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Michael Procter <michael@voip.co.uk> wrote:

> On 3 November 2013 22:55, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> > According to section 5.2.5, it seems that this is only the cases for
> offers
> > triggered by offerless reINVITEs. I don't think we want to be
> re-allocating
> > and negotiating codecs every time we want to make a change to the session
> > descriptions in use.
>
> Would the partial offer/answer work address at least part of this?
> m-lines that you don't want to change wouldn't need to be advertised
> at all, rather than being advertised with a restricted codec set.
>
> Michael
>