Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 A94151A0473 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 To4jtSlwOgD9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C201A0493 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id t61so11879803wes.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ea1ROHEmwb7+KAu0IP/Llw05OAC3KvJlpDDVhbGoZAo=; b=zrlD++gQy64gMSNxpk6OgLZAQ/2YNWa5vqLplxb1GUDZ2vpAJS9/u9xtzOKKZcSHhs eSVCH0lHPz7TS7NfOc7KQg76ICdOKbpZhg5zFogWSdLh8i5pHCL4RRYJC1f85jt9nKCQ 4nlKSivyGMFg8UCHNFcmIawz3UYIIVjKf2DGrACceqvtfQkcv4d/QU/WexW+C44J2jF7 PJOuHhTcxQawoZsjqfWkqAHXGh7nQmL+Zwcv/QLFXcwxp/YbmD5IGzsuW/Mlj9DAuR11 ukP1MCSxpN6Jcwf9I/R10dzPYCZfOsKxaP1eEKfeDfIJImZ7IEPB0y8wvFiBUEutRCNh DhlQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.85.168 with SMTP id i8mr182540wjz.81.1394653845041; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.161.66 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF8B463@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF8B463@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dsb1GqQmOxf7V6C1Xd_LG12d+kanSm80=kSwmQY=B7GSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d7efc04b77d04f46e2726
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/NeSoL2hv43RgwnAjSVuRoJF3rdw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
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, 12 Mar 2014 19:50:53 -0000

While I do like the pause/resume draft, having core RTCWEB WG documents
(such as RTP Usage) depend on it seems like a bit of a stretch. After all,
the document was only adopted last week, and it is a rare IETF WG document
that can go from a -00 WG draft to publication as an RFC in under a year.


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> at the IETF last week there was consensus in the AVTEXT WG meeting to
> adopt the pause/resume draft [1] as a WG draft.
>
> In rtcweb/webrtc we're have the situation that we're discussing so
> called "doo-hickeys" as an API surface where the web app (amongst other
> things) can pause and resume the sending of a track. This can
> be signaled with the direction attribute and a SDP O/A exchange (and the
> app pausing/resuming sending of a track would presumably lead to a
> "negotiationneeded" event being fired).
>
> But I think we should in addition require the browser to signal it
> according to one of the methods in [1] (e.g. TMMBN = 0), and also
> understand that signaling (a browser receiving TMMBN = 0 must know that
> the other end-point will pause sending).
>
> My argument is that we know that many dislike SDP in rtcweb, and a
> likely development is that it will be removed in a later version. My
> speculation is that signaling as outlined in [1] will then be used for
> pause/resume. If we support this from the beginning earlier
> implementations could more easily interop with those later versions.
>
>
> Stefan
>
> [1]
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause-05.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>