Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 08 May 2013 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 24AEA21F85E8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 04:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 zzi1ENX++-9u for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 04:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8126B21F8F2E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 04:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1784539E1C4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:00:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8w2dN8mAi0EL for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:00:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A23F939E04C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:00:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <518A304A.1030609@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 13:00:26 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040404070105060408010402"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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, 08 May 2013 11:00:38 -0000

The paragraph that worries me most is this one:


    Offerers conformant to this specification MUST do one of the
    following:

    o  Use non-overlapping PT values for each m-line in any given bundle
       group.

    o  Provide distinct a=ssrc attributes for each m-line which uses
       overlapping PT values with any other m-line.  [Technically, this
       is a general case of the previous point.]


To put a blunt point on it: Either send less than ~32 streams, or give 
a=ssrc attributes.

To me, that measn we're mandating one mechanism (PT values) for small 
numbers of flows, and another mechanism (a=ssrc) for large numbers of 
flows - such mechanism changes usually have "interesting" properties in 
what happens at the changeover point.

It would seem to me to be architecturally cleaner to insist that a=ssrc 
be used always.
But in that case, I have a very large difficulty seeing the important 
advantage this has over Plan B.



On 05/07/2013 08:30 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> In order to facilitate discussion between the two SDP format 
> alternatives we're considering, I've put together a document that more 
> clearly spells out the Plan A approach as we originally envisioned it. 
> Note that this is a slightly different approach than Cullen outlined 
> in Orlando. I fear the Orlando approach may have suffered from its 
> attempts to incorporate some elements of Plan B in an attempt to 
> appease proponents of that approach; and, in doing so, lost some of 
> its clean architecture.
>
> The cleaned up, new-and-improved description of the Plan A approach is 
> available here:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a-00.txt
>
> Note that we've omitted discussion of glare reduction from that 
> document, as I believe that mid-session glare can be completely 
> avoided by applications implementing a set of non-normative behaviors. 
> These behaviors are described in the a separate companion document:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add-00.txt
>
> Thanks.
>
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb