IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Endpoints that don't support RTCP

Luis López Fernández <luis.lopez@urjc.es> Thu, 23 April 2015 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <luis.lopez@urjc.es>
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 A15BC1ACDF4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 rKStzrJXq10U for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0630.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC7F71ACDE8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DB4PR02MB127.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.157.23) by DB4PR02MB174.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.158.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.148.15; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:28:10 +0000
Authentication-Results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
Received: from [193.147.51.18] (193.147.51.18) by DB4PR02MB127.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.157.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.136.25; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:28:08 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BBDCC48E-FF6A-445A-92CB-BBB3FBD774EE"
From: Luis López Fernández <luis.lopez@urjc.es>
In-Reply-To: <5538C10C.10905@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:28:04 +0200
Message-ID: <5C04FAA6-3F94-492F-8E9E-B475BC27434D@urjc.es>
References: <CAOJ7v-01DhCKewmC-Cvh4Z-jeOmi=CunisjFWceoPfk2ZM9Wgg@mail.gmail.com> <7978938E-B510-43E2-9F19-C4752F6D23FD@cisco.com> <CABkgnnWvU+aYT9zgwEXCUhaO98y9kPyKwHnT=KXSr8O=knfW8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+SNPY+Ait2c8w9GPT-QfP7LEiuU6ejrokba93k60DdVg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW6KFuJhswLK97LE6J=9vqkf-cmeRMZOuz516ZryeSRQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+wid8y2h0g2040V8bSr50+rQRzpg-tCTK9EUFmtJrZYw@mail.gmail.com> <55361B07.3010707@ericsson.com> <CAPvvaaK-OxXk4=igyqix-XdubRhq+OafYvaTsJhNsbi4KHXJpw@mail.gmail.com> <553627F7.6010407@alvestrand.no> <CAPvvaaLZXH1bFeAVPD=gHUB8egJcemKcCLhtnZrCW3DrdMA9UA@mail.gmail.com> <B3EC2C3A-3DF1-4AA3-96FC-0C24B5FACDCE@csperkins.org> <CAPvvaaK+BoLVtK9XKKR4VWkrTw=TsZwd282ZO+RC8y-JeEOvLQ@mail.gmail.com> <8FC332B1-653F-423B-8B37-CD5574BF9A85@csperkins.org> <CAPvvaaKZ5OkB+kVqiX4iTZ+TnUotTK-MWah8W+goQW9DPVT+dg@mail.gmail.com> <5538C10C.10905@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Originating-IP: [193.147.51.18]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR04CA0031.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (25.160.41.41) To DB4PR02MB127.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.157.23)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR02MB127; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR02MB174;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB4PR02MB127A93B09D9AF02AD17AB748DED0@DB4PR02MB127.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6049001)(51704005)(479174004)(24454002)(87976001)(86362001)(40100003)(2950100001)(92566002)(77096005)(36756003)(57306001)(62966003)(15975445007)(84326002)(512934002)(33656002)(50226001)(77156002)(66066001)(83716003)(19580405001)(19580395003)(50986999)(76176999)(110136001)(93886004)(82746002)(42186005)(74482002)(46102003)(3940600001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR02MB127; H:[193.147.51.18]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:DB4PR02MB127; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR02MB127;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0555EC8317
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2015 10:28:08.8322 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR02MB127
X-OriginatorOrg: urjc.es
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/IAovtvJpOdn3KpfmTOAo1OOJPfo>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Endpoints that don't support RTCP
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:40:10 -0000

Hi,
I don't have a strong position on this, but my initial feelings are aligned with the ones of Emil and Sergio. For service and technology providers, CB are a relevant concern and can significantly increase the complexity of developments for managing them. For being in favor of CB I would need to see more clear information on their need and also a deep analysis of the algorithms showing that they are compatible with the whole WebRTC ecosystem, which is beyond P2P models. We have quite bad experiences with bandwidth estimation algorithms that seem to work well in P2P but as sub-optimal when an infrastructure is mediating.

Best.

L.

El 23/04/2015, a las 11:53, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 23/04/2015 11:38, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> 
>> I am claiming that we don't have sufficient evidence that they work
>> and am concerned that they would trigger in situations where common
>> sense dictates they shouldn't.
> 
> +1
> 
> I completely agree with Emil. In fact, as a WebRTC service providers, what we are going to do in case of CB is to re-establish the connection immediately (maybe disabling video), so in fact the effectivity of the CB are going to be null and only add burdens to developers .
> 
> Best regards
> Sergio
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email