IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] JSEP and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 18 February 2013 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 ACC9D21F8CD2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tuiS5xdsgdPp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2549921F8CD7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU002-W210 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s27.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:23 -0800
X-EIP: [evNjSSHFIZrNNrR9mfphEUgAEiPJcprU]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU002-W210F2CC4F5AA749AEBA495B93F40@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_87fa7c9a-cc1f-413e-968c-3bd7b400ae91_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:22 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0F55CD@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0F555F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <BLU002-W14013516E3AE69595F4D5CC93F40@phx.gbl>, <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0F55CD@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2013 20:25:23.0132 (UTC) FILETIME=[14339FC0:01CE0E16]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03
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: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:25:29 -0000

Christer said: 

> Good questions, for which I don't have any answers at this point :)
> 
> But, IF we can agree on this as a way forward, one of the next steps is to look at the JSEP impacts.

[BA] The problem is that my opinion will differ depending on whether the SDP in question is to be used in the API or over the wire. 

The "different port" formulation makes good sense to me if you are looking for backward compatibility with existing SIP/SDP implementations which are likely to send an error in response to a "same port" formulation.   So if this is an "on the wire" question I give it a thumbs up. 

However, if you are asking me whether it makes sense for createOffer() to output SDP with different ports by default, when 99 percent of applications are likely to not be doing SIP interop, I would say "no".   Then the next question is whether there needs to be a mechanism in the API for indicating a preference for different ports, when this is desired.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email