Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 18 October 2013 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD71311E8312 for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.875
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.875 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.276, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ULaLvgcq1+M for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B999B11E8311 for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7fcf8e0000062b8-29-52619c42b12d
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8A.26.25272.24C91625; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:38:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:38:16 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:38:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: fi-FI
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7TnMQgg5ubDSw6JrNZrP3Xzm6x c24HswOzx5TfG1k9ds66y+6xZMlPpgDmKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6Ma3d2shRcFKzY/mMVawPj d94uRk4OCQETiWkXrzND2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjKKPHgxzooZwmjxPdXd4EcDg42AQuJ7n/a IA0iAoYSTXvmMYHYzAKBEu39b1lAbGEBT4npBzvYQcpFBLwkLm4VgygPk/j58BUbiM0ioCrx dtNFdhCbV8BXYuXTV0wQq+YwSxx+MxVsJidQ4szh86wgNiPQcd9PrYHaJS7x4SDM0QISS/ac h7JFJV4+/scKYStJrNh+iRGiXk/ixtQpbBC2tsSyha+ZIRYLSpyc+YRlAqPYLCRjZyFpmYWk ZRaSlgWMLKsYOYpTi5Ny040MNjEC4+bglt8WOxgv/7U5xCjNwaIkzvvxrXOQkEB6Yklqdmpq QWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBsYzoU2753jM2am+MGB/zpQVUsKqpYIv9JgS1t5+bawYPY/j7eyr 5x6YeDFpX79RdHxhYYq2bMS2D+r9ge7ukzbxF/ryf1HZfKropMhcWQ2X6b+Pi/4qNV5W694j rNUk33TO60xS1SrlBZM2COxizW4yfLVs5XIVWxOGGe5X9c2nP7Z93vzN+aYSS3FGoqEWc1Fx IgDyid59aQIAAA==
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:38:37 -0000


>> Again, it is not specific to parallel forking - it is also needed for SERIAL forking, in cases where you need to send updated Offers on early dialogs, and therefore cannot use PRANSWER.
> I don't think I agree on that but I really want to spend my time on making sure we get the setLocal / setRemote text working for the simple case before we sort all this out. 

This is how I understand it would work when discussing with Vijaya .

Now, if you don't agree, please then explain how you would implement the forking case I provided :)



> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [] 
> Lähetetty: 18. lokakuuta 2013 22:12
> Vastaanottaja: Christer Holmberg
> Kopio: Suhas Nandakumar;
> Aihe: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Order of m- lines in multiple PeerConnections
> On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
>> And, I'm not asking for a solution at this point, simply that we identify it as an issue that needs to be solved :)
> So I sort of disagree on two points here. 
> I disagree that it needs to be solved - I'm not against solving it if anyone has an easy way but every time we talk about this the conclusions comes up people don't want to bother to fully solve the parallel forking problem in the first version of the webrtc. Speaking purely for myself, SIP parallel forking has not turned out to be extremely useful and has turned out to seriously complicate the use and extensions to the protocol - basically the HERFP problem - so I don't really care if webrtc takes on that problem or not. 
> Second, I suspect that Invite with replaces actually does solve this. 
> I certainly don't mind marking it as an issue but it's not clear to me that the WG thinks it is an issue that needs to be solved or that it an issue that is not solved. I've sort of been waiting to see the other "easy" stuff in JSEP / Bundle / Unified plan get sorted out and then figured we could go back and see what was possible or not with parallel forking in SIP.