Re: [rtcweb] Clarification on offer/answer in jsep-01

Kaiduan Xie <kaiduanx@gmail.com> Wed, 29 August 2012 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kaiduanx@gmail.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 223DC21F8673 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WK+49dTHyhM7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A99321F8668 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so1150943obb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j8tjc+IBLUGtpg8pmcAARp5MBnlwByNNc+V37Ij6B2o=; b=Oa7axUt7CndomQhMldyd+XrDozOU5WQe2uL4UEYer0jnIstiy3/gaOcHhr2zG8ZX3N 4sabQsXV7AIvULvHEuALd5m7BocecHrwwHXEfPfyM1w9bbpkpELLqrpvD+MoGEwkuSV9 Zpy7OvLENNW/JwAHtNF52dbH4Y4Z6IHs6aiRf9v9wGSZTR6Xebu4POV22ZVU5KJ+yDhi TYfXZqWm8rMa6yw8bz2N+AKd2zP8Z9nX/hLv/nu1p2EDzBsgd4ZbvbEEIl2ws9mGnITx A8FcT8AA8I2/m1yztbOCQnpx9lT6QAgRYzoVeR8QiBm0XwT08aoAVZ82xgeD3uVuqGkw CPDw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.212.98 with SMTP id nj2mr1233315obc.18.1346247721757; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.23.129 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-1s+zaSWcMJa_u4bun53o=cq7R+F6_0Ow93qZjkT+Y4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACKRbQfXam_QqsUdMif-zR0uuiM6VFwP-VDy0q7f_r6gdV_-VQ@mail.gmail.com> <A9BAC738-4077-450F-ACC4-DD246292A2EF@microsoft.com> <AB704ACB-877F-4F55-B806-AF4EA771EDD3@iii.ca> <CAOJ7v-1s+zaSWcMJa_u4bun53o=cq7R+F6_0Ow93qZjkT+Y4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:42:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CACKRbQfZc5KQTO_fKr1=6zZnD9uDcLHU_ieaVANCtANWwoFa3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kaiduan Xie <kaiduanx@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Clarification on offer/answer in jsep-01
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, 29 Aug 2012 13:42:03 -0000

"The offer would not actually be sent until after the updated local
description has been applied, so this would not violate 3264."

It makes sense now, please add this sentence to the next draft.

/Kaiduan

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> The text here is incorrect, this was a mistake on my part. While this usage
> is technically permissible if you can deal with the complications it
> introduces, it is not compliant with RFC 3264, as has been pointed out.
>
> What I meant to say here was that the local description can be updated even
> after an initial local description has been specified. There are real-world
> use cases for this, such as setting an initial local description to tell the
> ICE Agent the number of m= lines to gather candidates for, followed by a
> later update when the getUserMedia MediaStream has been obtained. The offer
> would not actually be sent until after the updated local description has
> been appliced, so this would not violate 3264.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Francois Audet <francois.audet@skype.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> "As in [RFC3264], an offerer can send an offer, and update it as long
>> >> as it has not been answered."
>>
>> yah that won't work or all the reasons mentioned before and in my opinion
>> does not represent the WG consensus. BTW - that was added in the -01 version
>> of the draft and submitted without me ever seeing it - I'd be happy to fix
>> it but I don't have the source for the draft. Chairs?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>