IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] JSEP Walk Through on Wednesday the 18th of September at 17.00 CEST (8 AM PDT)

Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> Wed, 18 September 2013 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
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 302DE11E823C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1-vBBv6qyt14 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (lost.IN.psyced.org [188.40.42.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C342C11E8102 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r8IBjx7k007211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:45:59 +0200
Received: from localhost (fippo@localhost) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id r8IBjwDK007207; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:45:58 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: lo.psyced.org: fippo owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:45:58 +0200
From: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-X-Sender: fippo@lo.psyced.org
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-1ZWjVuZ2YpMR4qS_0dCPqSd7BO8C-mUnr4xaaYr+Zq4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309181309210.6225@lo.psyced.org>
References: <523006A3.4020907@ericsson.com> <523814EE.2080205@ericsson.com> <52381736.5000709@alvestrand.no> <523817FC.80406@ericsson.com> <CAOJ7v-1ZWjVuZ2YpMR4qS_0dCPqSd7BO8C-mUnr4xaaYr+Zq4A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="683466026-208692068-1379504758=:6225"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP Walk Through on Wednesday the 18th of September at 17.00 CEST (8 AM PDT)
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:46:06 -0000

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Justin Uberti wrote:
> The draft has now been posted at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-04.txt, with 13 new pages of text.
> Readers should focus on Section 5, which specifies the behavior of createOffer/createAnswer, as well as Appendix A.2, which provides examples of the generated SDP.

I have a question about the OfferToReceiveAudio / OfferToReceiveVideo
sections (5.2.3.1& 5.2.3.2)...

In createAnswer (I'd note that both section currently only talk about the
offerer), what is the expected behaviour when those constraints
are set to false and a MediaStreamTrack of the respective type has been
attached to the peerconnection?

Is the behaviour different when there is no MST of a certain type attached?

Does this only affect the direction attribute or also whether the m-line 
is rejected by setting the port to zero?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email