IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 34D2621F95EE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6]
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 R0pP53p9cwFI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22d.google.com (mail-bk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E365021F95F4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id je9so2429311bkc.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=FFARHMDrPtwypOScCJ54nHVrRLPqE/E/BR4lb20tM+c=; b=Exbl+kNfZ+jzv+a2Smsk/trNX0zkuUUvQySxVXxuJx7gCKtxmJGXrS6MHy7uVj945w mbqXOhaB0Jre3ud3o4/6QvXmxQNDF0UShVeWx6Hfu7vTxgnRqXfDB2VPSYIxbi4U6cQw tIRcdAybnCvV3qPJYertT116UQJ5ADtTbd1b0Odsv+eaBeiFcn3Z3ulZ56Nha/bf/A3c 0nArXYvzBFI4317mjq0c4ZYDEjK0im63DLGASo1a+7UyoDrJk1luGpXOHD3MgaFWuHEa PPBXNi+7O5oSKe8+yU+e3rjgRqlAVf2n9PZ3pfY8AhFnGbbj4X/Kn64fGI+77565Yf17 jngA==
X-Received: by 10.205.9.193 with SMTP id ox1mr5994222bkb.35.1368802833499; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ([83.228.78.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tc9sm3210472bkb.18.2013.05.17.08.00.31 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 May 2013 08:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5196460B.9000808@jitsi.org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:00:27 +0300
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPt_GL2pU6RrgQ91XCW-Xyn8dyuxSTE0icGu9Yd_GPgYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgMjvvbOR+DAKS91V2Hiij2Ir53PlH7DZNqN2m8yZFt2Cse/8QKf58FFvwHU7PQIxva+6q
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: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:37 -0000

On 17.05.13, 16:07, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Harald Alvestrand
> <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>     I quibble about the characterization "any media stream which is
>     intended to be
>     independently processable by a legacy endpoint must appear on its
>     own m-line." As Bernard has said, the field of deployed applications
>     is diverse enough to make this question confusing - both
>     "independently processable" and "legacy endpoint" may need further
>     qualification in order to make that statement unequivocally true.
> 
> 
> Well, to the extent to which there are many legacy endpoints which
> assume that
> each renderable entity must be on its own m-line,

There are tons of legacy endpoints that know what to do with one audio
m= line. There are some legacy endpoints that which know what to do with
one audio and one video m=line.

There might be endpoints that are capable of handling multiple audio
video endpoints but I am not sure how they could possibly be quantified
as many.

> 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.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email