IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 EF14121F965F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.638, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 N5FZNgCDo-Va for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f52.google.com (mail-qe0-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F16521F9660 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 1so2706486qec.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=FNkBJWCl/FMdhTqC93qioNtAVhmEoCh7UQ5pP/nZJVM=; b=Fc49qtG9LM/xTBDcU/fmW/b3FI21XYB8XXTjAwcCE0QZaTwAL/VDAd8j8dlV16CCAk elmSkZ9aZcEDDL01OuYWRd/es9wEXQg/+TPPRdtsheOI7CDIBvfSI6E3uiNPfzd8VNK6 y6XZn1u1tpOV3QGs7JFktWEvaWLU/VOKtOQI5H0hwAC8jBOq2csVOnF8xqPIlwlW+ldf sR3DPD3oqukv5m0qr23Kl6fAa006p8yfzoW/Jcb3WoFbkcmoZ5XGd7oLVIAjIEXCghEq 6kmVqNgt7br+EZumnpdCa5DbhOGqMT2eWzNFryZFhwKODQFhDSUCOR+hPPzSddJzYYAe YcGA==
X-Received: by 10.224.40.10 with SMTP id i10mr37310145qae.96.1368803333537; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.85.130 with HTTP; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.170]
In-Reply-To: <5196460B.9000808@jitsi.org>
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> <5196460B.9000808@jitsi.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:08:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNA0+D_Kq=yGZQu-rrqks6C2v=GjJDYbKLA_+u8+w8AcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3071d15676c6a804dceb5c21"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxoxLMGQSz87QEOREJux+L26r27B9DW9RallZbY1pE9ajeAEGbkt7GNBvOVoga+/kpkPlM
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 15:09:00 -0000

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

>
> On 17.05.13, 16:07, Eric Rescorla wrote:=line.
>

> 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.
>

The question is how an endpoint which wishes fo offer more than one
audio and one video does so in a way that doesn't cause older
endpoints to choke.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email