Re: [rtcweb] (no subject)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sat, 17 May 2014 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 109FA1A022D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 May 2014 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 wKEjNvO72Ixw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 May 2014 14:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37AC41A0178 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 May 2014 14:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-vpn7-167.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F8AF22E255; Sat, 17 May 2014 17:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPVb+oKTozxrqvtftONTS=6u_2+zy10OejJi5-FhSXWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 13:27:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B80350DC-7B01-46A7-AD30-A2B0BDD46522@iii.ca>
References: <CABcZeBPVb+oKTozxrqvtftONTS=6u_2+zy10OejJi5-FhSXWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/JsynnLfaX5LZG8h8T4xlci_wfhY
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] (no subject)
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: Sat, 17 May 2014 21:06:35 -0000

as a purely pragmatic issue, some device seem to have SDP bugs that cause them to ignore some attributes at the session level. I don’t really care what we do on this as mostly I think theses devices should fix their bugs but when people talk abut SDP interop issues, this is occasionally an issue that comes up. 

So I agree we need to have a SHOULD on saying where things go that could be at either a session level or a m= level. Session level makes more sense from a standards point of view but m= level might have slightly better interoperability. 

I don’t care which we choose - perhaps some of the people that considerers themselves and experts on why SDP has interop problems could chime in on how important this is. 



On May 11, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/19
> 
> JSEP S 5.2.1 reads:
> 
>    Attributes that are common between all m= sections MAY be moved to
>    session-level, if explicitly defined to be valid at session-level.
> 
> We should probably encourage this. I propose we make this a SHOULD
> rather than a MAY.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb