IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F611A025A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:58:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.925
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fx3SsSIwkvtD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com (mail-oa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F410F1A0527 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m1so1115782oag.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=rwyr+6FUcAVBXR1TnJYHjQVcykj3AmF8rD2M2bf7M74=; b=O1Su0z3+9Ic6QkyvVaAcJH6ap6WF+cveyK7Gjj9NrTfA7gqxHWYsUNHz7qTOicMx6b AODk21zTRXtFN1UD4ga5aNcsBpLZsjEeAaS3L2LjBOvZWHzYimoHI4ZznuXLl/j2AWTE 780Pn2szyQ4otGOkf8aTzE9WohUl4Gi/TpkZvbgwtTayzU3h1nLnR4N2PL64A56yJ1EE iallKqKuJVBzfsXoUBIxfHBZ2iFiFDuiXSNgYC0C+e44qv1w0+OnT5YWkRPNJzVqeff5 nRkktcJ8OkqeSG6SyDUySEjxOp7glWjvV0t4QrlFz0G64gQgAUeawJer/xhBTihqO/QJ Clng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=rwyr+6FUcAVBXR1TnJYHjQVcykj3AmF8rD2M2bf7M74=; b=O0pRc4ZGWm1TIuxKQ56OlMH7MWLP4WkRICYw1i02+DyyLUbVCFkAImZD618kZatOq9 DsG//v7kCm0CvPdiclHqGF4us6NBKv0T24DSVMdIA1wwSwnB0Zm6ohcQrUqqXsDIeUCk I3c1C32c0GxQDUpO8KOMD6w58yAh57BXu0M0lVD0IgT3mKP0g6XI8YqTnpZljxebc0Op VoTNRce8w1+lT6NSh4YZHHS9/CAROKkC5w/boB6KaRwepH2k1nhu0Pon5cx4ZecfSnAh p9gJSZmAC+VvF4nPn93w1IxtgEKzW/2jR3J8gW61BnbSF0zW3QNOKnhAWrMfS/ktQwmh rnWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmP24+76R3KQM1Twbr2WPP79jQ/ee9p7n6htWwU21+Gtm0zjHM5XcLlZPd37XfowZYspyERnq9FRrNlqyH3WGOzpraFFGPmfE2zR2S61bShXLMpajdeX7YcQyvjvRCb/d6FNaAnMQ+doh7z/LOWtXrTXbZOYMd3aVsKrpD18o2IVPBgONHN0NrRrwe9rtfgzHbi6fOg
X-Received: by 10.60.116.166 with SMTP id jx6mr863481oeb.22.1394031527078; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.96.230 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:58:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F99B5539-EEB7-4A3C-B8E4-4B6B607D8B2F@cisco.com>
References: <1BC59A5D-D1C9-4E3F-ABFB-C1D664CD7ACF@cisco.com> <EEF5B1D0-7782-4EB8-90DF-F1D56B2D2ADC@phonefromhere.com> <0526965B-6AC9-42F4-9E62-CF3BF29872D3@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-3JAKZDHtrx9J2v=hqksQ9xdz7XW_1HbqioEzWMqUrn7A@mail.gmail.com> <F99B5539-EEB7-4A3C-B8E4-4B6B607D8B2F@cisco.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:58:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0ZBh_OYQmAm=-7wFBa=_zUowqoHZzRBq=zzMBvwJTg6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0129534efa4cfb04f3dd4110"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/NASbG88qvwNWFahYhWi5l_LLDwY
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:58:57 -0000

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy@cisco.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
> > So there are three things here:
> > 1) MUST the implementation offer encrypted header extensions? (i.e.
> mandatory-to-implement)
> I’m fine with yes
>
> > 2) MUST the implementation use encrypted header extensions? (i.e.
> mandatory-to-use)
> I think this needs to be No. Never mind my current use case - if the far
> end does not negotiate RFC 6094 with the browser, the media and headers
> should not fail.
>
> > 3) MUST the implementation expose an API to control this? (i.e. no SDP
> munging needed)
> I prefer control surfaces to SDP munging but as you say, I could live with
> SDP munging in 1.0
>
> >
> > I think we want yes for #1, no for #2, and #3 is potentially interesting
> but out of scope for 1.0.
> > That gives encrypted headers for audio on by default, but remote parties
> can negotiate this off using RFC 6904 mechanisms.
> >
>
>
> seems workable
>

Where should this be codified (in which I-D?)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email