Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 20 September 2013 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A442121F89FF for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lVYtpfnpBeH for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EDB21F8414 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9a8e000005620-c3-523c2186fa8d
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 75.22.22048.6812C325; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:20:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:20:52 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)
Thread-Index: AQHOtds+oqyPOXXX30KyTFCuXf+qS5nORo0AgAAjfGA=
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:20:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A8710ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW6bok2QwaxPwhbH+rrYLNb+a2d3 YPK4MuEKq8eSJT+ZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLOnr3PUnDNreLWjdmMDYx9dl2MnBwSAiYS /SdXM0HYYhIX7q1n62Lk4hASOMwocerXXmYIZwmjRN+EyUAZDg42AQuJ7n/aIA0iAsESvc/f M4LYwgLREo9WTGSDiMdI7Dr/hQWkXETASqL1nA9ImEVAVaLp+AxWkDCvgK/E3Xm5ENO3M0pc fn4V7AZOAV2JWd86WEBsRqB7vp9aAxZnFhCXuPVkPtSdAhJL9pxnhrBFJV4+/gc2U0JAUWJ5 vxxEeb5E771DYCW8AoISJ2c+YZnAKDILyaRZSMpmISmDiOtILNj9iQ3C1pZYtvA1M4x95sBj JmTxBYzsqxjZcxMzc9LLzTcxAuPm4JbfBjsYN90XO8QozcGiJM67We9MoJBAemJJanZqakFq UXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQZGpguFCmyPV/sJq7l7MLDKzffxtFJNbXGZoTLfjal5G/OPc0nrJmX8 k4rxS3czf/s0q9z0nbSCxj+epW4JqkxJZnsPr5xcduzd4WUdzO9Xtq2z3dbgdIpJWaBa+8h/ kygliz86p9fO36TbM0tg9cKJ16wnpPHlNiku+nL8Jpe0e17zfPEdu5uVWIozEg21mIuKEwFo cCenaQIAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:21:04 -0000

I really hope BUNDLE will be used as described in BUNDLE. At least that should be our starting point. If we want to change something, it shall be justified and discussed, before put into a document.

In addition, in the example flow in JSEP, BUNDLE IS used with different addresses, so an alignment will be needed in any case.



From: [] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2013 13:12
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)

On 09/20/2013 10:27 AM, Kevin Dempsey wrote:

Q_4:      BUNDLE

The text says:

"If a m= section is not being bundled into another m= section, it MUST
                generate a unique set of ICE credentials and gather its own set of
                candidates.  Otherwise, it MUST use the same ICE credentials and
                candidates that were used in the m= section that it is being bundled

As, when BUNDLE is used, the initial Offer will contain identical ICE candidates, does that mean that we will also include identical address information in the initial Offer?

I don't object to that - I just want to clarify, as it has impacts on the text in the BUNDLE spec :)

I think we should be careful here to specify that BUNDLE is used according to the BUNDLE spec, and that any description given here is non-normative.

Over to MMUSIC....