Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 6A71D21F8517 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.78
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.468,
 BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 N4aX4R1rnn1i for
 <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by
 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F5921F8CB4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-a1-523acd128747
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by
 mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id
 D3.16.03802.21DCA325; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:08:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by
 ESESSHC011.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.51]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009;
 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:08:17 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th
 september)
Thread-Index: Ac61H8SXeXXAffdpQLKis+JdCZjjDA==
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:08:16 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77DB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77DBESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7QWasgg2VXJSw6JrNZbJ0qZLH2
 Xzu7A7PHlN8bWT0WbCr1WLLkJ1MAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXRm/HA6aCp8EV2//dZm5gnOLR
 xcjJISFgInH36id2CFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgKHGSWWX5zECOEsYZTYtf4uUxcjBwebgIVE9z9t
 kAYRAXWJyw8vgDUzC1RIrPm4GswWFvCRWHLtOBtETbDEoj1XGCFsPYm2O59YQWwWAVWJyau2
 gdXwCvhKPJ61BCzOCHTE91NrmCBmikvcejKfCeI4AYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2MFOUdCQFFieb8c
 iMkskC+xYIk0xERBiZMzn7BMYBSehWTQLISqWUiqIEp0JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4mhnGPnPgMROy
 +AJG9lWM7LmJmTnp5UabGIGxcnDLb9UdjHfOiRxilOZgURLn3ax3JlBIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+
 qDQntfgQIxMHp1QD4w6+Gzs9BQ6YK8spznpYyznnQkvCriUy7uLS+yqS7hy45j59V2/T3XVJ
 2ekZK58dUHn98MnM3I9S13S/MEqn2UQe9p20j5/vzJz7e15oMAkzlC+Yf+f12Wmtnt27lspm
 sfWfXjK18+SNW5xZPLax15e1qTv33W+w+zTpWfm5zSnxhw5ZPMl+X6LEUpyRaKjFXFScCADH
 HZfnYwIAAA==
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy@cisco.com\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th
 september)
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: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:08:34 -0000

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77DBESESSMB209erics_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Section 5.2.1:
-----------------

Q_1:      o- line <sess-version> initial value - deviation

What is the reason for recommending a <sess-version> zero value in the init=
ial Offer, when the RFC says SHOULD use an NTP format timestamp?

I don't have any strong feelings, but in general: whenever we deviate from =
the "base" SDP procedures I think we should justify why.


Q_2:      o- line <sess-version> initial value - forking

When a new PeerConnection is created due to forking, the <sess-version> val=
ue must be based (incremented) on the value associated with the "mother" Pe=
erConnection, for which the initial Offer of the whole communication sessio=
n was created.


Q_3:      RTP

The text says:

"The <proto> field MUST be set to "RTP/SAVPF". "

But, that of course only applies to RTP based streams (not the data channel=
). Also, in general, it needs to be clear what information needs to be in e=
very m- line, and what information is protocol specific. I would suggest to=
 have a "General" sub-section, a "RTP" sub-section, etc.


Q_4:      BUNDLE

The text says:

"If a m=3D section is not being bundled into another m=3D section, it MUST
                generate a unique set of ICE credentials and gather its own=
 set of
                candidates.  Otherwise, it MUST use the same ICE credential=
s and
                candidates that were used in the m=3D section that it is be=
ing bundled
                into."

As, when BUNDLE is used, the initial Offer will contain identical ICE candi=
dates, does that mean that we will also include identical address informati=
on in the initial Offer?

I don't object to that - I just want to clarify, as it has impacts on the t=
ext in the BUNDLE spec :)


Section 5.2.2:
-----------------


Q_5:      Offer when in "local-offer"

The text says:

"If the initial offer was applied using setLocalDescription, but an
                answer from the remote side has not yet been applied, meani=
ng the
                PeerConnection is still in the "local-offer" state, the ste=
ps for
                generating an initial offer should be followed,"

I don't understand this. Why would you create a new Offer while you are wai=
ting for an Answer to the previously sent Offer?

Also, when setRemote() is called, to which Offer does it apply?


Q_6:      BUNDLE

We'll probably also need some text about BUNDLE.


Regards,

Christer


--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77DBESESSMB209erics_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Section 5.2.1:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-----------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Q_1:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o- line &lt;se=
ss-version&gt; initial value - deviation<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">What is the reason for recommending a &lt;sess-versi=
on&gt; zero value in the initial Offer, when the RFC says SHOULD use an NTP=
 format timestamp?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I don&#8217;t have any strong feelings, but in gener=
al: whenever we deviate from the &#8220;base&#8221; SDP procedures I think =
we should justify why.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Q_2:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o- line &lt;se=
ss-version&gt; initial value - forking<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">When a new PeerConnection is created due to forking,=
 the &lt;sess-version&gt; value must be based (incremented) on the value as=
sociated with the &#8220;mother&#8221; PeerConnection, for which the initia=
l Offer of the whole communication session was created.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Q_3:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RTP<o:p></o:p>=
</b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">The text says:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-indent:36.0pt">&#8220;The &lt;proto&gt=
; field MUST be set to &quot;RTP/SAVPF&quot;. &#8220;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">But, that of course only applies to RTP based stream=
s (not the data channel). Also, in general, it needs to be clear what infor=
mation needs to be in every m- line, and what information is protocol speci=
fic. I would suggest to have a &#8220;General&#8221;
 sub-section, a &#8220;RTP&#8221; sub-section, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Q_4: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BUNDLE<o:p></o:p></=
b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">The text says:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-indent:36.0pt">&#8220;If a m=3D sectio=
n is not being bundled into another m=3D section, it MUST<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; generate a unique set of ICE credentials =
and gather its own set of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; candidates.&nbsp; Otherwise, it MUST use =
the same ICE credentials and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; candidates that were used in the m=3D sec=
tion that it is being bundled<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; into.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">As, when BUNDLE is used, the initial Offer will cont=
ain identical ICE candidates, does that mean that we will also include iden=
tical address information in the initial Offer?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I don&#8217;t object to that &#8211; I just want to =
clarify, as it has impacts on the text in the BUNDLE spec :)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Section 5.2.2:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-----------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Q_5:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Offer when in =
&#8220;local-offer&#8221;<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">The text says:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-indent:36.0pt">&#8220;If the initial o=
ffer was applied using setLocalDescription, but an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; answer from the remote side has not yet b=
een applied, meaning the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PeerConnection is still in the &quot;loca=
l-offer&quot; state, the steps for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; generating an initial offer should be fol=
lowed,&#8221;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I don&#8217;t understand this. Why would you create =
a new Offer while you are waiting for an Answer to the previously sent Offe=
r?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Also, when setRemote() is called, to which Offer doe=
s it apply?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b>Q_6:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BUNDLE<o:p></o=
:p></b></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">We&#8217;ll probably also need some text about BUNDL=
E.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Christer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77DBESESSMB209erics_--
