IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] JSEP and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 18 February 2013 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 2EC7C21F8C9E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:10:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZv5ix2yEmaJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:10:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FBE21F89B2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:10:24 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f0d6d000007e61-bc-51228aafc62d
Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B1.5A.32353.FAA82215; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:10:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.82]) by ESESSHC008.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.42]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:10:21 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: JSEP and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03
Thread-Index: AQHODhK5jGYz3rJxuE6H2F9+HS8Ud5iACdXY
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:10:20 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0F55CD@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0F555F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <BLU002-W14013516E3AE69595F4D5CC93F40@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU002-W14013516E3AE69595F4D5CC93F40@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6GLqVAgxntXBb7l1xmtlj7r53d gcnjcc8ZNo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGU0vZ3NWLCAv6JjfidrA+Nsni5GDg4JAROJ I9eruhg5gUwxiQv31rN1MXJxCAkcYpTYcHATlLOYUeLexG/MIA1sAhYS3f+0QRpEBEIkzpx+ xgpiCws4SsyatYcFIu4ksWvrIkaQchEBI4ldm5xBwiwCqhLdBy6ClfMKeEu8m7SbGcQWEqiS mN59kQnE5hSwljjy9DIjiM0IdM/3U2vA4swC4hK3nsxngrhTQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1ghbEWJ nWfbmSHqdSQW7P7EBmFrSyxb+JoZYq+gxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFpWcDIsoqRPTcx Mye93HwTIzAODm75bbCDcdN9sUOM0hwsSuK84a4XAoQE0hNLUrNTUwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFw SjUwBh3YJG3AHbd0e4jvRo1jl817w1b3uS1ra33ca702xsvtaHWcQNOkWq08ZeGcPAHVVTcl j4klGOnIMH6WO9l6I4NpO+sxthc+Trq85qbqnwKsl/StFWw3c+5VYFik3F1rx9svuDxQWWlh 7Y+ImPyTXXriJ5+d/Jwn+//F/i5Nz9iQl1ECL5RYijMSDbWYi4oTAT2kbIpRAgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03
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: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:10:26 -0000

Hi,

>What are implications of this "new" approach on the SDP usage in the JSEP API, if any?
>
>For example: do we expect the SDP output by createOffer() to support this "different port" alternative by default?
>
>Also, overall is there a goal of "optimizing for the common case"?

Good questions, for which I don't have any answers at this point :)

But, IF we can agree on this as a way forward, one of the next steps is to look at the JSEP impacts.

Regards,

Christer



> From: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
> To: mmusic@ietf.org
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:50:21 +0000
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've submitted a new version (-03) of BUNDLE.
>
> Based on discussions with Cullen, and exchange of the concerns we had with the different port alternatives (different-ports vs identical-port), this version now describes a mechanism where both alternatives more or less are combined. When the first BUNDLE offer is sent, and it is now known whether the answerer supports BUNDLE (or, even identical ports), different ports are used (read: the one-rtp alterntaive). Once BUNDLE answer has been received, a new offer, with identical port numbers, is sent.
>
> We think that having to send a second offer is not going to increase complexity and delay, because in many use-cases subsequent offer(s) will be sent anyway. For example, RTCWEB entities will do it because of ICE.
>
> Cullen has also been added as co-author.
>
> Now, we do realize that there are still issues that have to be described, and hopefully we will be able to focus on those from now on, but our wish is that this proposal will unite the different "port camps" :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email