IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Default proto transport in JSEP

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Wed, 28 November 2018 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 650671277C8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:38:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=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 8y5kYdFr_r8a for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp73.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (smtp73.iad3b.emailsrvr.com [146.20.161.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D90FE1277BB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp10.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp10.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7C99AE0638; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:38:43 -0500 (EST)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp10.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id D362EE0596; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:38:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.91] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [70.77.44.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:38:43 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_622469F8-31C7-4146-AA04-F3992D2809D2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxut5Lr+Bmyc20y+vV=+_RESw+h72DYLnt3G1_BjS6sTVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:38:41 -0700
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <1346FE48-5D61-48B7-BF37-3D7BAA930DB0@iii.ca>
References: <CA+9kkMADnZJBaV0hfLuwGU0bGBEP5tCPZ=8Zd_85Dgzi37ghAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxsNFFmER__H0+5Mzts58yn9cWLMEADhSnLR4nreKD9WAQ@mail.gmail.com> <9B9B741B-622F-4565-899B-700636408F6C@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxv9r08RLvMSM4h11A6sXU9E=u_8Qvy-TBfjNcwkhcqf3w@mail.gmail.com> <54ebb208-e7b3-a0f1-6a5c-4745d3a56447@cisco.com> <CAD5OKxut5Lr+Bmyc20y+vV=+_RESw+h72DYLnt3G1_BjS6sTVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/GceRYmxSVNO9f12uQP7Decprz5I>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Default proto transport in JSEP
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 28 Nov 2018 16:38:48 -0000


> On Nov 27, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> 
>  I suggest to update JSEP section 5.1.2 to match the rest of the documents to say that "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" proto MUST be used during ICE restart. When ICE restart is not in progress, "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" proto MUST be used if default (only) candidate is a UDP candidate and "TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" proto MUST be used if default (only) candidate is TCP candidate.

I don’t see any real befits to implementations to this change and I don’t think the rtcweb consensus was around the currently solution. Do you see some advantage to implementations to this?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email