Re: [rtcweb] draft-alvestrand-one-rtp-00.txt and profile

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 15 August 2011 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 571F021F89B8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MCtMLYWx0lNL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7007221F899F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB09F39E112; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:32:27 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gFRTqoHUjaC3; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF4939E074; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E48D9E2.5080903@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:33:38 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852203D41B70@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4e4d793b-8748-41c8-a9ea-ded2237cda03@email.android.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852203CD99E6@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852203CD99E6@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030304040400050605020407"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-alvestrand-one-rtp-00.txt and profile
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, 15 Aug 2011 08:32:56 -0000

On 08/15/11 09:57, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> There are discussions in other SDOs about using AVPF for video and AVP 
> for audio, within a session.
> However, those discussions are not within the context of multiplex.
I added the following text:

The reason for the requirement for systematic proto is that there are 
many combinations that don't make sense (for instance "RTP/AVPF" in one 
section and "RTP/SAVP" in another would make encryption and availability 
of TMMBR depend on the outcome of negotiation, which seems strange). The 
cases where combinations make sense (RTP/AVPF with UDP/FEC for instance) 
also usually require that separate RTP sessions be used. [[QUESTION IN 
DRAFT: Are there sensible combinations?]]

Makes sense?
> Regards,
> Christer
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>     *Sent:* 14. elokuuta 2011 23:15
>     *To:* Christer Holmberg; rtcweb@ietf.org
>     *Subject:* RE: draft-alvestrand-one-rtp-00.txt and profile
>
>     The profile affects the protocols available (such as tmmbr, or
>     whether it is rtp or something completely different. Some
>     parameters may be meaningless under a different profile. So making
>     profile dependent on TOGETHER support looked strange to me. Do you
>     see any case where different profiles would be critical?
>     -- 
>     Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>     Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>
>         Hi Harald,
>
>         Section 3 of the draft says that the profile of the sections MUST be the same, but there is no justification.
>
>         Could you please explain the reason behind that MUST?
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Christer
>
>