IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Rejecting MediaStreamTracks in JSEP

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Mon, 03 February 2014 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 D46E51A0213 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:03:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 5DI7s7tqbWoV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x229.google.com (mail-ve0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F731A015A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id oy12so5531713veb.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:03:43 -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=gfnYGtb004uADYqh6wRLQqzGDvftjOdAliIrf+dAjsA=; b=Gv3Z7RsKTxJiXMezr3iSKQYAuj3aJxLeex5MF1h8YlJkMSa4fp9CtyX0NDwugxxjzG r58u9bhcnSjsU86qB1L1BExJ9s1Eg0MgUV9TPObApkSJd09s1CbZ4uSn/uWySDzRG5E/ Lv6K0GPVFSMgyPXQjjXVV8mmoLWlN8t8JPoNiqJnM9Tdrjj6XCK/pzG1bC+6NYl4npBF MAdxPBLAe3MZtAhd4iPpFPSjBUHDxaqYAmSnOPbM0pNvH8ad48rA4iwlq48WK0wnSeuN cXHMUrObQD1uUTT8yNn64Ze832F8BYUcDt4YlUlycQYSe1+vbuzMut/WVt/7Kt9SgOLO xFKA==
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=gfnYGtb004uADYqh6wRLQqzGDvftjOdAliIrf+dAjsA=; b=iNMdeRzpI7RgfTzzkEDFUuUqeSylrRQnZUT85p2l6RtvslK+uxXkqjjqYCtgKqO4WS BquK8V6ml7bXkMPo11LtDNWhcejzh3spD4FjK5NI0IEupIrtiuu4YwO0gT3NdItu8F9Q ANwNW34snqjawwjiT8DFRyF3+NY6d6GxLAPhgP71WalbOtJuZN2ZjvgX/GRU7cWY1VyG FOFGAZ9lbFlSmmt/BQ+rekEhr434PxQ3D/Eg2a3JQ8tXYJClQNFiub45Bz37dJvoIYrX Oxw7xT9hM+XWNCncc1M/J4sMz8wqYlTsI1l35z60cnIY0LUs90fLDF8NgchpDjlljPNc fH6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWUb8jID5bD7vJPgHIiiIn8MCP//sRj3J1+gaz1tjO2MJJ4MuCbOsY+CE8itnxQqRwHq587HUSK786Z+P5ONioKn31lvRahduAS4Fvgi78HAxkyfKc20YJSnWnp5F1VPBkHOQ3PNHfe5umRZCwWWoywQNIXoc2sI2USXcdvfT3hb283xSetSfNKaCgezVpP2vSOXrP
X-Received: by 10.220.139.136 with SMTP id e8mr1363403vcu.34.1391461423130; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:03:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.89.170 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:03:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52EFFF3E.9080705@nostrum.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-22T7hLMdC2je0nLk34MXQ8L+JFWLtAz--6Ryt+DMaMvQ@mail.gmail.com> <52EFF9E0.40808@nostrum.com> <CAOJ7v-2adSjCiwEp=QRcY+=cYKiiubyjz=rjeMHH4qC56BP1Vg@mail.gmail.com> <52EFFF3E.9080705@nostrum.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:03:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1iLOuJ-MhHpGp99j1qNieQTP9=EmTpibCh21fj5-6hMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b343296d8404004f186db09"
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Rejecting MediaStreamTracks in JSEP
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:03:45 -0000

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 2/3/14 14:25, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>> It's not clear to me that adding a new attribute would solve any problem
>> that appid doesn't solve; you still need to deal with the "other end not
>> using it" issue.
>>
>
> Regardless of whether you think there's a problem in the legacy interop
> case, the big benefit here is that an explicit indicator by definition
> makes the operation explicit, and that in-and-of-itself is a good thing.
>
> The core issue is that you're trying to make the operation implicit; your
> proposal edges awfully close to the DWIM model of design, which we know
> causes problems when we try to add further extensions.


Good point, but since we are still defining exactly what appId does, I
think we have the opportunity to make it explicit.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email