Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No Plan)
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2013 22:34 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 5AAE711E811B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6]
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 kLj7tnAgQH5D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x230.google.com (mail-ea0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4320811E812E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id o14so1709311eaj.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=ZICQi42slqLYa20TOukU6MRxWgtt06RKkuVEK4QpQlw=; b=jcKcaoRe8QfJvsqaozFEjj7y3umGOuKfaiJCdr/ml5XTVC1AfTc9eQHYlEjH6BoI0I KMttcTTyRawZKIjruJPCVo65i1B0n1Go36du4cLoQOKFcO6umaH+fe7BTAuKOglIHvii R7s91AEk514zLHcq+PdJaz4eK+4Vud9AtAsn6wpcGLacaCe1JDExPuOMPzf45PDS0wL4 fgTQq6+LNBlv3mJ75pRNWD+64WoNFZ6dot7JTBHafY/zpqYObJTy/wHgH8DRZJEgmD/p a2dLzC1NOfjAqJG1g/GMuwWyNq14uzNk3zsZ7NaWxowavvM8+/NwHJoeI0lrtOi40f++ g6TQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.2.199 with SMTP id 47mr24378831eef.131.1370298539349; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ([109.64.225.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g7sm87817863eew.15.2013.06.03.15.28.57 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Emil Ivov' <emcho@jitsi.org>, "'Cullen Jennings (fluffy)'" <fluffy@cisco.com>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A65DB8.9060702@alum.mit.edu> <51A880A7.7010908@jitsi.org> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113528171@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <51A8EAB7.8080206@jitsi.org> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11352940B@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <51ACD224.8080100@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <51ACD224.8080100@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:27:44 +0300
Message-ID: <026601ce60a9$935dca60$ba195f20$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKY1+pHnunKeTVQ57jkMHJdmrnDtABcFAfPAX32L6oBX6G4ywHAYU4IAr9kYt0CEayFy5dBR3yg
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No Plan)
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, 03 Jun 2013 22:34:41 -0000
Emil, I assume that in the example of no-plan the m-video section should have a=max-send-ssrc:{*:3} and a=max-recv-ssrc:{*:3} I had the other thread about the de-mux but this also shows my question, the document says " This specification uses demuxing based on RTP payload types." But in this example they are not unique, you may have three RTP streams with the same pt number to de-mux using only pt-number. If you use max-send-ssrc to indicate the number of send streams, if you add a stream you need to update the max-send-ssrc Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Emil Ivov > Sent: 03 June, 2013 8:28 PM > To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org > Subject: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No Plan) > > Hey Cullen, Paul, all > > On 31.05.13, 22:19, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > > On 31.05.2013, at 12:23 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote: > > > >> Certainly. Could you please post the SDP that you would like to see > >> translated in a way that's compatible with "No Plan"? > >> > >> Emil > > > > We can start with the SDP in plan A > > The example in "7.3. Many Videos" looks like a good start: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a-00#section-7.3 > > Here it is: > > v=0 > o=- 20518 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.1 > s= > t=0 0 > c=IN IP4 203.0.113.1 > a=ice-ufrag:F7gI > a=ice-pwd:x9cml/YzichV2+XlhiMu8g > a=fingerprint:sha-1 42:89:c5:c6:55:9d:39:f9:b6:eb:e7 > a=group:BUNDLE m0 m1 m2 m3 > > m=audio 56600 RTP/SAVPF 0 96 > a=mid:m0 > a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 > a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000 > a=ptime:20 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > [ICE Candidates] > > m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m1 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > a=bundle-only > a=ssrc:11111 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9 > > m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m2 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > a=bundle-only > a=ssrc:22222 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9 > > m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m3 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > a=bundle-only > a=ssrc:333333 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9 > > > An offer generated by a "No Plan" browser in this case would look something > like this: > > v=0 > o=- 20518 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.1 > s= > t=0 0 > c=IN IP4 203.0.113.1 > a=ice-ufrag:F7gI > a=ice-pwd:x9cml/YzichV2+XlhiMu8g > a=fingerprint:sha-1 42:89:c5:c6:55:9d:39:f9:b6:eb:e7 > a=group:BUNDLE m0 m1 > > m=audio 56600 RTP/SAVPF 96 0 > a=mid:m0 > a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000 > a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 > a=ptime:20 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > [ICE candidates] > > m=video 56602 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m1 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > [ICE candidates] > > I. Talking to legacy > > In case you need to talk to an actual legacy (as in widely deployed SIP) > endpoint, the above would translate into a regular two-stream call. Both Plan > A and No Plan would lead to essentially the same result (if we accept that > older endpoints won't throw an exception at the sight of 4 m= lines) so not > much to discuss here. > > II. Talking to Plan A style endpoints > > If you need to talk to a Plan A endpoint you basically have the following > options: > > 1. You use JavaScript to prettify the "No Plan" SDP and turn it into something > that looks like "Plan A". Not my favourite option, but I am sure some would > like to use it. Maybe vendors of Plan A equipment would even distribute JS > libs that do this. It would basically all come down to generating one ssrc > attribute and two additional m=lines and appending this to the existing SDP > string. > > 2. The application retrieves SSRCs from the browser, adds additional > application-specific signalling to it and then sends the whole thing to a > signalling gateway. The gateway (which you would also have with Plan > A) would convert the SDP into what it needs it to be. > > The application specific signalling can look like this: > > { > "firstStream": > { > "SSRC": "11111", > "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9" > }, > "secondStream": > { > "SSRC": "22222", > "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9" > }, > "thirdStream": > { > "SSRC": "333333", > "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9" > }, > } > > 3. In Plan B, section 3.1 talks about generating "Plan A" style SDP with the > help of .content properties. If browser vendors are willing to implement > support for this then I suppose it would be a third option. > > III. Talking to other WebRTC applications > > This is the fun case and the one we should be most concerned with. Let's > imagine that the answerer needs to add a fourth video stream. To make this > work endpoints would need to do the following: > > a) with Plan A and draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add: > - send application specific signalling to the offerer > - have a new O/A exchange > > b) with Plan A: > - have a new O/A exchange > - potentially risk glare with some impact on user experience > > c) with No Plan: > ... nothing > > I am intentionally not going into how all plans would require additional > metadata that would place SSRC 1 left and 2 right as I don't think this conveys > any meaningful differences. > > Comments on the above are welcome. We could also move to another > scenario from the Plan A draft, if you believe that 7.3 is not representative > enough. > > Emil > > > -- > https://jitsi.org > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Martin Thomson
- [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - PT based MUX Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mark Rejhon
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Barry Dingle
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Plan) Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Pl… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- [rtcweb] Plan xyz discussions; MMUSIC <> RTCweb R… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Peter Thatcher