Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 29 July 2013 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 88D5121F9C8B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 RdNQAipvb+Qz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3681D21F9A50 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id c11so2033227qcv.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=L8dj04nslYZjOsGkfZjGru0i+IGa4CO/I7t4XA0AUdc=; b=axhq3Y+e9/x8LIeWjFvfQmp5f2rJQPhfzZxnnkCZtzIDUJdkV+/lY/pmACnRd5dMqk gN+gtD3GKlChAdAoIQy7tFR8YD0p8mYDm4i/ht7avRMJqRwE6T3jaYwHDaGr1a8GTqbW Kj8ZWGKSBls3YJWy+zeFk7rTH2ntjQak/sF5/wazfrMsVwFDmaRgTejAesaKsyx3Z3lu sfYYKVZ3wmsKpiOH6eQ3fEvV35Nq2JV+GzdwKbKzk90XD+NqZWUGbGIoXDJv/3Ps8PS+ TPuld7dx9DM97dQu5/jjN2LXvpWPnCMfC21dxftY6MjhQbAVXhniFq96pKQkAsXGs2rw YOFA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.16.207 with SMTP id p15mr5890154qca.47.1375120198810; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1375119910.76535.YahooMailNeo@web171302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CALiegfnU0U0juKu8y68K-pfkdf9NwQPxH=yM7vt=1EZEg=fxtA@mail.gmail.com> <1375119910.76535.YahooMailNeo@web171302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:49:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfms3r7RSZ=nCH2fSFLnRxc8UjkL4F2d3evFs5XJOWmAbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Bossiel thioriguel <bossiel@yahoo.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015175df19ef975ed04e2aa1e7a"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSziW3HCKoslyH8SZ9cMzBTUNl/Xj66z20j4PYwehHVGjQPGp21P59BWjn0j2xSPvZrtfH
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC
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, 29 Jul 2013 17:50:40 -0000

Thanks a lot for clarifying it. So Christer was wrong ;)

And it makes my scenario even worse. I really hope something will happen
and WebRTC will get rid of SDP...

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
El 29/07/2013 19:45, "Bossiel thioriguel" <bossiel@yahoo.fr> escribió:

> You said: "2)
>
> SDP seems to allow that the offer and the answer have different number
> of m lines "
>
> No at all:
> RFC 3264:
> For each "m=" line in the offer, there MUST be a corresponding "m="
>
>    line in the answer.  The answer MUST contain exactly the same number
>    of "m=" lines as the offer.  This allows for streams to be matched up
>    based on their order.  This implies that if the offer contained zero
>    "m=" lines, the answer MUST contain zero "m=" lines.
>
> Mamadou.
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *De :* Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
> *À :* "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>; "public-webrtc@w3.org" <
> public-webrtc@w3.org>
> *Envoyé le :* Lundi 29 juillet 2013 19h31
> *Objet :* [rtcweb] SDP is not suitable for WebRTC
>
> Hi, I initiated a thread [*] about Plan-Unified and multiple m lines,
> but it was moved to MMUSIC maillist (don't know why since it is about
> WebRTC applications design):
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11966.html
>
> Sorry for the cross-posting but at this point I'm a bit lost and do
> not know which is the appropriate group for my concern.
>
>
>
> So my concern is:
>
>
> - Web application with a SIP over WebSocket client running in the web.
>
> - The web user is provided with a conference SIP URI in which there
> are *already* 8 participants (5 of them emitting audio and video and 3
> just emitting audio).
>
> - The user calls, from his webphone, to the given URI to join the
> conference.
>
>
>
> Let's imagine that the JS app knows the number of participant in the
> conference.
> Let's imagine my browser have mic and webcam.
>
>
>
> QUESTION:
>
> How can my browser join the conference without requiring SDP
> renegotiation from the server and, at the same time, being able to
> send audio/video and receive audio/video from others (different tracks
> / m=lines)?
>
>
>
>
> "SOLUTIONS":
>
>
>
> 1)
>
> I tell my browser to generate a SDP offer with:
>
>   - 1 send/receive m=audio line.
>   - 7 recvonly m=audio line.
>   - 1 send/only m=video line.
>   - 4 recvonly m=video line.
>
> (Obviously this is a joke)
>
>
>
> 2)
>
> SDP seems to allow that the offer and the answer have different number
> of m lines (I'm not aware of that but I believe that SDP can do
> "everything"). So my browser generates a SDP offer with 1 m=audio line
> and 1 m=video line, and the server replies with 8 m=audio lines and 4
> m=video lines.
>
> Will my browser understand such a SDP answer with more m lines than
> its generated offer? I assume NOT.
>
>
>
> 3)
>
> My browser generates a SDP offer with 1 m=audio line and 1 m=video
> line and the server too. And later the server sends re-INVITE with all
> the m lines.
>
> Oppss, SDP renegotiation...
>
>
>
>
> SDP is bad for WebRTC. SDP is good for legacy symmetric communications
> in which there is a single-track audio communication and, of course,
> both endpoints emit audio. But SDP is bad for modern RTC protocols in
> which an endpoint can emit tons of tracks to a single endpoint.
>
>
> Do we really want this for WebRTC 1.0 ?
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>