IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP and ssrc-group,

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 22 October 2014 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 D91C81ACD6B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 fDvgc4wbUgby for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (mail-qa0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA551ACD5C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x12so526774qac.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gdBhcw5rgUtnVuPWuPyAQgST/y3ogEuAJm8R1rKX35g=; b=drN6OEZBdBbBPjhmk/rPLi11aYs9VWFZRfB34Hz/WEtHOOouelkDyeT1VSns8ucPhP DD+ropbtAE+PZqadoR1ksm/3z34KIB0XeHzPKaB5mfoqEl+m8kjj0TQIIX/9h40oit2+ huVcF5R+y2504My7JNC5AZjKwXVzp8eZ8CRK5ssWt19U2Wp/wi+AhM8cIaq70xZ6gy5h +NdE8Nqpw9YBx3ZrWDmGF2Vy5U37AhAmbchnmAgTKwpLrR2/eLnlFGoSUP6zNELGYVm9 b33Ji2gARgKHYhG1ZxFWJKMWP4GBHK7rbnmAbPOcwGNM/a5YZbVb9k+q0SW4qmLk85No u0Yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhE1DiF9mBBwn/ielc2q7ItnO19bp5nn0XNT/h9ZEEZzjWxRlklaC5KzLU3Ak/y+nIbFx3
X-Received: by 10.140.84.106 with SMTP id k97mr53717816qgd.76.1413991816155; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.69.200 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0Losm_FGAvaag2Ee79_mVgXo_NESL_PO6S_GTa7Cj_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfmH8rRyEDbJjQ=kzMv0nGC=S9gNsE7roE=kqJyVcfgy8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0Losm_FGAvaag2Ee79_mVgXo_NESL_PO6S_GTa7Cj_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:29:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfn0YRopEMNfUtFLG01dfp=6suMtiTYVMigoEtw+g7X8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/F9_JeBGEDjVnWkDslVMn1cPcJP4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP and ssrc-group,
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: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:30:26 -0000

2014-10-21 22:02 GMT+02:00 Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>:
> In all seriousness, it would be nice if this behavior was standardized, so
> that applications could have deterministic behavior. If we can come up with
> appropriate text about the ordering of SSRCs, this could be written into
> JSEP's handling of setLocalDescription.

So I expect a new draft about how to map ssrc values and payload-types
in SDP. I think we already have 4 or 5 drafts about mapping or
grouping stuff in SDP, but it looks like having them is not enough to
define which payload-types are carried over each declared SSRC within
a transport or m line (or bundled m lines within the same transport
because what a m line represents is no longer clear).

Is that? do we need a new SDP draft? or is it enough if we create a
convention within the WebRTC context?

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email