IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 DC88D21F9344 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mikAU9lY8iAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2F221F926E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (118-163-10-190.HINET-IP.hinet.net [118.163.10.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r4K9kuQg068428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 May 2013 04:46:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5199F10B.5030102@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:46:51 +0800
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com> <518A304A.1030609@alvestrand.no> <518F6338.8070903@jitsi.org> <518F83E5.4060209@alvestrand.no> <519519DB.6050702@nostrum.com> <519524EA.3000509@alvestrand.no> <51952860.5030906@nostrum.com> <5195304B.10706@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBO+miF-euyyKFDrpMUdnV-Ej2QaZgKmiMc2Yp08QUyz7A@mail.gmail.com> <5195CEDF.9040109@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBPt_GL2pU6RrgQ91XCW-Xyn8dyuxSTE0icGu9Yd_GPgYA@mail.gmail.com> <5196460B.9000808@jitsi.org> <CABcZeBNA0+D_Kq=yGZQu-rrqks6C2v=GjJDYbKLA_+u8+w8AcQ@mail.gmail.com> <519654A5.1050406@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <519654A5.1050406@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 118.163.10.190 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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, 20 May 2013 09:47:02 -0000

On 5/18/13 00:02, Emil Ivov wrote:
>
> On 17.05.13, 18:08, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org
>> <mailto:emcho@jitsi.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>      On 17.05.13, 16:07, Eric Rescorla wrote:=line.
>>
>>
>>      > then presumably you need to follow this rule to ensure interop, no?
>>
>>      Therefore, the interop part with the "many" endpoints seems to be
>>      covered already. One still needs to find ways of handling and
>>      potentially gatewaying ICE and SRTP for many of them but that's a
>>      different matter. O/A-wise we seem to have consensus on how to do the
>>      case with the two m= lines that each carry one track.
>>
>>      It seems to me that we have now moved beyond that.
>>
>>
>> The question is how an endpoint which wishes fo offer more than one
>> audio and one video does so in a way that doesn't cause older
>> endpoints to choke.
> I might be misunderstanding or missing something, but isn't it clear
> that, if you are trying not to choke anyone, the first thing to do would
> be to stick to a single m= line for audio and a single m= line for video?
>

Not if you're talking to a device that expects three media streams -- 
such things have historically used three m=video sections (one for each 
stream). Which is kind of the reason we're specifying Plan A the way we are.


/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email