Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 20 March 2014 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD651A0780 for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2NpckmIOzXWo for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76A41A071B for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d17so551134eek.29 for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=By8SfoLMNOcJcj+epJDEz2nxtOW2RC2ajGcCHakXpQ8=; b=c3PhfxC0WW35u0t50vh5JD75Vw7dyclIgadTccNiq/xP2AYcQStK8yKdHCsW0BLkUN feZNj/mfdWFccRiRjT1SoU6gtz9nDJgx9PVYn2gCdmXcaOOahDU4l/DQonPmZZTbrHe4 cC4xnUd4cl/3U5dcpEhHAPZi++fa7VXIl0VmSk2/yGRHGq1Wgbb0MSwkSJFDL5Da1Ouh TC8THISGs+8Dm7Xlbmu37V/RL2GFE7c+3/E+22agAG7jC1wAGZk4YCLSV3/J6PmDh4Du 8KY+TjJ6d+L2xN+W+Aai4XK5F/tr9NZQddYGAptCOrX53UceL0qNzNpihAiFHMS6BKR2 Nlnw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s12mr41417465eev.4.1395315714447; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x45sm3657169eef.15.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <>
To: 'Justin Uberti' <>, 'Bernard Aboba' <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:41:47 +0200
Message-ID: <03c301cf4431$62655c90$273015b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03C4_01CF4442.25EF16F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQG40hOjRt6QEED99AEB0hJqlXDfEwGYh9JwAvRKJ7ea8ld8UA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:42:08 -0000


The pause and resume has the tmmbr=0 option based on RFC5104 (No IPR in the data base for RFC 5104;  . this works well for point to point case.



From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
Sent: 12 March, 2014 10:56 PM
To: Bernard Aboba
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?


Agreed. Aren't there also patent declarations against this doc from multiple holders?


While SDP will likely be removed from the API in the future, the replacement would be a app-specific message sent over websockets, which seems like it would work just fine.


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Bernard Aboba <> wrote:

While I do like the pause/resume draft, having core RTCWEB WG documents (such as RTP Usage) depend on it seems like a bit of a stretch. After all, the document was only adopted last week, and it is a rare IETF WG document that can go from a -00 WG draft to publication as an RFC in under a year. 


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <> wrote:


at the IETF last week there was consensus in the AVTEXT WG meeting to
adopt the pause/resume draft [1] as a WG draft.

In rtcweb/webrtc we're have the situation that we're discussing so
called "doo-hickeys" as an API surface where the web app (amongst other
things) can pause and resume the sending of a track. This can
be signaled with the direction attribute and a SDP O/A exchange (and the
app pausing/resuming sending of a track would presumably lead to a
"negotiationneeded" event being fired).

But I think we should in addition require the browser to signal it
according to one of the methods in [1] (e.g. TMMBN = 0), and also
understand that signaling (a browser receiving TMMBN = 0 must know that
the other end-point will pause sending).

My argument is that we know that many dislike SDP in rtcweb, and a
likely development is that it will be removed in a later version. My
speculation is that signaling as outlined in [1] will then be used for
pause/resume. If we support this from the beginning earlier
implementations could more easily interop with those later versions.



rtcweb mailing list


rtcweb mailing list