[rtcweb] jsep-04 questions about phrasing
Michael Procter <michael@voip.co.uk> Thu, 19 September 2013 15:40 UTC
Return-Path: <michael@voip.co.uk>
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 763A821F964C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3]
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 A5Evf7Olfq9s for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5646121F8F9A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob103.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUjsa4zAXSp2HJ0QeMtBCLiHTwoXdhVxz@postini.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:19 PDT
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id cb5so8035366wib.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=QrDq9aJ10lpHJwf2u4zlzRTrQzMA52BmR+y5aJpJXHw=; b=YNLcQm/Y1OOvnGFtA2rvwN6Dj0bMjZ4AGZhc5sU5Liu36iBJykclYEd40kgYmU7+Np XStraE72SGImFxzCR+FHAYCec/EWxNKkFYV7h1VWwB0G/E8WeBtvLqBgNzgLoOGKknQ3 AuSW03fr4D/V46+fJhV8QdGn9nbRiE+HWnrxqTbWLdtjUVK1myhTGrVAPI1vpIBmtILS uNTLkJJiZXLV7T66B+FQTXWw5f94jOcigTuxA5dOiCAg32fLN++GUMOeW9j35LKr/jg9 TkKfpA2Gjoi/3XbQbUSBEPFU75yUUcC6lQpElCDKgyod70uNOEGfdUnRkoZwCU0xJ27f 7BxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnV93g812P1dcAJzL9wOxCbVLNDEuXnmEMxF4n9fFe/oNyC6kmY6KD83kmyd3Tz4js797GOuwnSSLZEEUGhmqzIgWqqURyQKG7/Qu7X9T/2HbYLldr+RsPi6oTzzVV8M5Ye1cw0WBfrMCxiOPu07Qcsv6yERw==
X-Received: by 10.180.182.68 with SMTP id ec4mr12122237wic.40.1379605218001; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.182.68 with SMTP id ec4mr12122233wic.40.1379605217935; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.93.34 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:40:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPms+wTjaHirfh3TC1iSRT+KdhAvnAizgtL60TYCMDqP-8d+KQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Procter <michael@voip.co.uk>
To: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [rtcweb] jsep-04 questions about phrasing
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: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:40:26 -0000
Hi, Section 5.2.2 Subsequent Offers This section starts with the sentence "When createOffer is called a second (or later) time,". As far as I can tell, the rest of this section applies both to subsequent offers created by the original offerer and also offers created by the original answerer. In this second case, createOffer has never been called. I would suggest something like "When createOffer is called after the initial offer/answer exchange,". Section 5.2.2 11th bullet: o The m= line and corresponding "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines MUST only include codecs present in the remote description. Is this necessary? Can't we offer new codecs in a subsequent offer? RFC3264 Sec 8.3.2 permits new codecs to be offered, old ones to be removed etc, with the only constraint being to not reuse dynamic payload types. Finally, the two example SDPs both contain "s=-" whereas section 5.2.1 encourages "s= " instead. Personally, I prefer the hyphen, but consistency is probably more important. Regards, Michael
- [rtcweb] jsep-04 questions about phrasing Michael Procter
- Re: [rtcweb] jsep-04 questions about phrasing Justin Uberti