[rtcweb] Questions on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 18 July 2014 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 6A4681A040F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 EFQn30YRoAEm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E581A03CA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id TeyZ1o0020vyq2s55f4gxk; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:04:40 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Tf4g1o0023ZTu2S3Rf4gQg; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:04:40 +0000
Message-ID: <53C88EC8.1010605@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:04:40 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1405652680; bh=bZQbdH1Q4DdbUucjZxbN+jOxSBdvXBKK9x4Iwp3LmE0=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=uXRJ9I5qtNdGVEYYkkqvuSgjA26+VJ497aq+GpJ3P5agQ8Nrdj1H3oUpiH5b2L2n9 9aNTbUvi65QkhDzFWRTKrTAmaiiOuRSbB0O0SWrsFYfR1sahvr7cOJ99vgS1YE35am PXSkxIxl4GPi8byU5ZSNseHPLG1jJP4yV8sNiJEu1tpgG9DX5Fa8gW0ZHl0eyfobal N1FUHYGtDMZDsYU0qQMPGAzYwtNNoz8gtFwIjZBTLJHRtS1FMQUTi7TRqiwcTISTvO jC1HqAaimUC8IUT0SB9pScMO1GoUmpSTc8UqljAT8erl8Fjb3aOttlqTdaxA0lZfEo orOqDdqOyp99g==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/TQtaDjXOEF8_JXC5Oa_l3iI8Sio
Subject: [rtcweb] Questions on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15
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: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:04:42 -0000

I have a couple of questions after reading this draft:

Section 4.9 says:

    Taking the discussion in Section 11 into account, a WebRTC end-point
    MUST NOT use more than one RTCP CNAME in the RTP sessions belonging
    to single RTCPeerConnection (that is, an RTCPeerConnection forms a
    synchronisation context).

and then Section 11 says:

    ... This is motivating the
    strong recommendation in Section 4.9 to only use a single CNAME.

       The requirement on using the same CNAME for all SSRCs that
       originate from the same end-point, does not require a middlebox
       that forwards traffic from multiple end-points to only use a
       single CNAME.

So one is MUST strength, and the other seems to be SHOULD strength. 
Which is it?

And isn't this "middlebox" a WebRTC end-point? If so then that is 
another conflict.

Is it really that WebRTC *browsers* must use one CNAME, while other 
WebRTC *devices* have more freedom? That seems to make sense since an 
RTCPeerConnection is only a browser thing.

	Thanks,
	Paul