Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 30 May 2013 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=38621cb7c1=christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 AFD9D21F96FF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 qjJ1WMjvHP5X for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8727B21F96B8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f5d6d000003d54-09-51a703581302
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4C.69.15700.85307A15; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:44:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.167]) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.63]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:44:24 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] No Plan
Thread-Index: AQHOXJ6w4pPZWNQxOUWhx5DufiT5nZkdWAeQ
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37D144@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW4E8/JAg9//9CzW7JzAYrH2Xzu7 A5PHkiU/mTz+vwkMYIritklKLCkLzkzP07dL4M64vOk0W8EGwYrf57+zNzB283UxcnJICJhI THx0jw3CFpO4cG89kM3FISRwmFHix5p2JghnCaPEpJ/TGbsYOTjYBCwkuv9pgzSICLhInF// gx3EFhaQldgyeQYTRFxO4vrPfWwQtpHE6WlbmUFsFgFViTXXJ4HV8Ar4SvT332UBsYUENCRW /1jMDjKeU0BTYt82RpAwI9A930+tAStnFhCXuPVkPhPEnQISS/acZ4awRSVePv7HCtIqIaAo sbxfDqJcR2LB7k9sELa2xLKFr5khtgpKnJz5hGUCo+gsJFNnIWmZhaRlFpKWBYwsqxjZcxMz c9LLDTcxAuPg4JbfujsYT50TOcQozcGiJM6rx7s4UEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwcn iOCSamD0epDN9PpzjJys65Vn2zc2/1ijuHr5o7ogF+srNq4H4uWr1q/89vTrSXvB0jMsEbJ6 y1oDF25Rmv43hLn9wYS01yYfPh9rbIg0btyW1xXk8OhA2LFVz/emaR7Yp/11R2HX5H2eRX5p Jde/frNxl9xqnbSusWzyzLOfNBvDV8+9KD3teOD8Y/2XlViKMxINtZiLihMBMvnA21YCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:44:30 -0000

Hi Emil,

The draft says:

	"For the sake of interoperability this specification strongly advises
   	against the use of multiple m= lines for a single media type."

My understanding is that the usage of multiple m= lines for a single media type would not affect the mechanism as such, but I just want to verify that :)

Also, there ARE "legacy" implementations that use multiple m= lines for a single media type (e.g. video enabled devices using two video m= lines: one for camera content, and one for slides).

So, while I definitely think that legacy interoperability shall be taken into consideration, I would not like to make such strong statements. In my opinion (the draft also talks about it), the usage of multiple simultaneous SSRCs per m- line is a much bigger issue when it comes to legacy interoperability.

Also, in CLUE we have been working on signaling scenarios with multiple m= lines per media type.

Regards,

Christer



-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Emil Ivov
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 22:00
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] No Plan

Hey all,

Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many others that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate a negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a little bit less.

The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan

The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the intricacies of multi-source scenarios to application-specific signalling, with potentially a little help from RTP.

Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the interoperability requirements that concerned them can still be met with "no plan". Of course they would have to be addressed by application-specific signalling and/or signalling gateways.

Comments are welcome!

Cheers,
Emil

--
https://jitsi.org
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb