Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg: external rejection of channel

"Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 28 February 2014 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 46D771A00D1; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
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 shksOz-QIkEM; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F111A00EF; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s1SGkesF028681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:46:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.35]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s1SGkY0i016154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:46:40 -0500
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.8.212]) by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.35]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:46:34 -0500
From: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg: external rejection of channel
Thread-Index: AQHPMv00Ot+PDux+H0inH2oRraNWlJrH7JxQgABjlQCAAR/dwIAAideA//+55ECAAXTlAP//tqXA
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:46:33 +0000
Message-ID: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826E0011F6@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D1BC516@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJuyhsyk4jO_TS=5khD9ROAx7uYU1YAkCV0Xy4QVUkiqXBJJfg@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826DFFB545@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <530E4E34.4010707@alum.mit.edu> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826DFFEDAB@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D1C023A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826DFFF2E4@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <5310B14E.4000809@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5310B14E.4000809@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/VZYQrhsbOuAOyCU_4Fb71AM5IpI
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg: external rejection of channel
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, 28 Feb 2014 16:46:50 -0000

Hi Paul,


> >> Isn't it enough to, in the data channel protocol spec, say that the
> odd/even
> >> rule applies unless the stream id is explicitly negotiated using some
> other
> >> mechanism?
> >>
> > [Raju] Yes, that is sufficient from DCP draft. draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-
> channel-sdpneg should still need to say that "when both external and DCP are
> used, even for DCP created streams the stream ids have to be specified and
> managed by the application (else DCP stack will default to odd/even rule per
> DTLS role which may conflict with SDP offer/answer rule)".
> 
> Can we assume there must be a mechanism for using DCEP and still
> controlling which channels are used?

[Raju] Yes, we can assume that and it is already supported by :
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07#section-6.5
and
http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#widl-RTCDataChannel-id
I believe it is safe to assume non-browser implementations of 
data channel stack gives an option for application to select 
stream ids independent of DCEP or external negotiation.


> 
> It might help if the O/A negotiation also followed the even/odd rule.
[Raju] May be I am missing something here. Richard's draft already has
a specific even/odd rule for O/A. But the issue is TLS based rule may
conflict with the O/A rule as TLS roles may change depending on a=setup.

> But there are difficulties in knowing who is even and who is odd for the
> first O/A.

[Raju] Not related to first or subsequent O/A, but rather a conflict 
between TLS roles vs. O/A.

> 
> If the offerer always creates the channel before sending the offer, then
> that will prevent the two mechanisms from stepping on one another's
> stream ids.
[Raju] 
In some cases, initial offer may not have a data channel stream created. 
I don't know how this can prevent stepping on each other?!
May be I am missing something here?! In most cases TLS role is 
determined after O/A is completed, but offerer creates a data 
channel before answer, then how does it know even/odd rule? 
So, trying to use TLS role for external negotiation is problematic.

Thanks
Raju