IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] A problem with both A and B

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Fri, 17 May 2013 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 A155B21F9661 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 15:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Xz3+9f6BmZNO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 15:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com (mail-ee0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA3421F92EB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e51so2814727eek.38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 15:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=L3J4Wh+jn3qzBStuuMtqqehTw5xGUC9TXQ2/MYmn+dA=; b=RQyanQOdFr2+qz2P9JUpcwzRBPTFAS79AnXbhq2lVanhZ9+B2W0v/X1CCSYcHg5PSh 3mgyW7YC7oH/sq4zHwxXVjU8S5KAXLYeKpIPoinO0bDMGQv5+17WIQpZltb2ALGBvsU+ Jubkd37FySrLnwOShQxsdOUDLFgF4NGJ1f6t6HrvVS2/8AoJirr5bKHtaTyMylAB2k9/ quoa/kvtfqZI4ybD6VG3IG6jJwrFBpsDCXXFtNP7jEoG4c4X9mG+4CYJsM5qWktgG4r8 l4stzhMnA0I0CzA1tATdhNTN37f9jkhTI86yJVI2pcb35FvwhtvWdKZ8LQPJG1A9Bc8k Zt2Q==
X-Received: by 10.15.23.69 with SMTP id g45mr134430405eeu.25.1368830052770; Fri, 17 May 2013 15:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-181-177-28.red.bezeqint.net. [79.181.177.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n7sm22161876eeo.0.2013.05.17.15.34.10 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 May 2013 15:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "'Dale R. Worley'" <worley@ariadne.com>
References: <BLU403-EAS40305B2D015B786CC67EB9293AC0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU403-EAS40305B2D015B786CC67EB9293AC0@phx.gbl>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 01:33:12 +0300
Message-ID: <000001ce534e$86180a40$92481ec0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDc7dRjg5sEw9AeSWqkQr4B3rwpDprswDxA
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A problem with both A and B
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: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:34:18 -0000

I agree that it is important and I that it is a reason to look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-westerlund-mmusic-max-ssrc-01 for adding
RTP steams without having to signal the SSRC in the SDP while using RTCP or
RTP headers for mapping the new streams.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Bernard Aboba
Sent: 17 May, 2013 11:22 PM
To: Dale R. Worley
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A problem with both A and B

It is important. In fact, I would argue it is critical for congestion
control (e.g. removal of simulcast or layered streams by the sender should
not require an O/A exchange).

"Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:

> From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
>
> Both plan A and B currently describe semantics that would require O/A 
> exchanges every time a source is added or removed from a session.
> [...]
> Does any of this make any sense?

My understanding (and I'm not tracking everything carefully) is that this is
a bad situation.  I've been accumulating desiderata, and one that has been
on the list for a long time is:

   DES F11  It must be possible to add and remove one way video flows
      within the bundle without requiring an additional offer/answer
      cycle.

Do people think that this is not important?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email