Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections

"Vijaya Mandava (vimandav)" <> Mon, 21 October 2013 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFDB11E86DB for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CbMfp8zpGyF3 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FA211E86E6 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9375; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1382383904; x=1383593504; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Vkf+w+/wYYstiK1OQSHDB3s5YwdpJFGTRV6DqkqYYJ0=; b=DSNIXxoe7RzCUjqX7iKV7wmtj6V6Y42n+FlVo5TM4UBJml2xCVQ2LadA IbKcH01pyVBNzpR8Mnws6Ebk2Nn3i/pbkj8bVz4f6Uz3vLWtfKiK6v/Is HshgfWTxbeQZ90zaHc52BlM1PfM43FczhY5+Duwec5fPbaN/NDO57Q70A w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,541,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="274779464"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2013 19:31:44 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9LJVisA002202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:31:44 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:31:43 -0500
From: "Vijaya Mandava (vimandav)" <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:31:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1CDFD781608D924094E43F573C351961124C7D16xmbrcdx13ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:32:10 -0000

Hi Christer,
I agree that parallel  and serial forking call flows can be solved with multiple PeerConnection model.

But going back to the original question you had -
>>> However, according the 3264, the ORDER of the m- lines also need to be kept the same.
>>> So, my question is: how can I ensure that the order of the m- lines in an Offer for a new PeerConnection is the same as in an Offer for an old PeerConnection?

The Jsep doc 4.1.4 setLocalDescription already implies that a new PeerConenction would use/support the old local description, and reading it, assumption is that the old description m-line ordering would not be changed.
It definitely didn't mention that we would send entirely new SDP on the new PeerConnection created…

We can call for clarification in the Jsep doc, but definitely not a issue as far as I see.


On 10/18/13 4:38 PM, "Christer Holmberg" <<>> wrote:


Again, it is not specific to parallel forking - it is also needed for SERIAL forking, in cases where you need to send updated Offers on early dialogs, and therefore cannot use PRANSWER.

I don't think I agree on that but I really want to spend my time on making sure we get the setLocal / setRemote text working for the simple case before we sort all this out.

This is how I understand it would work when discussing with Vijaya .

Now, if you don't agree, please then explain how you would implement the forking case I provided :)



-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) []
Lähetetty: 18. lokakuuta 2013 22:12
Vastaanottaja: Christer Holmberg
Kopio: Suhas Nandakumar;<>
Aihe: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Christer Holmberg <<>> wrote:
And, I'm not asking for a solution at this point, simply that we identify it as an issue that needs to be solved :)
So I sort of disagree on two points here.
I disagree that it needs to be solved - I'm not against solving it if anyone has an easy way but every time we talk about this the conclusions comes up people don't want to bother to fully solve the parallel forking problem in the first version of the webrtc. Speaking purely for myself, SIP parallel forking has not turned out to be extremely useful and has turned out to seriously complicate the use and extensions to the protocol - basically the HERFP problem - so I don't really care if webrtc takes on that problem or not.
Second, I suspect that Invite with replaces actually does solve this.
I certainly don't mind marking it as an issue but it's not clear to me that the WG thinks it is an issue that needs to be solved or that it an issue that is not solved. I've sort of been waiting to see the other "easy" stuff in JSEP / Bundle / Unified plan get sorted out and then figured we could go back and see what was possible or not with parallel forking in SIP.

rtcweb mailing list<>