Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Sat, 01 June 2013 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 9675E21F894E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_17=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 46qLIgABH42q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-x231.google.com (mail-bk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AA521F88D8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 6so1103774bkj.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 00:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=yy5mlKwz6vj+9Xg8Eiw6kZHD6395d9alYrUDc5H7+4U=; b=l5BdPQGD5wj0uGEGxFRu0zzI191PzEtA60fWHt6WjQTBBj/yTLLMLKyuaA/c4GJA0M 0AW18WYJYSEUm5Vel4Kju0Q0+gdWXAv8TqDUYQUB1p69MLxJZED4qdkNwGCoaTqOekoB zTm/OLwEVxIThZ0bL5lAj8nUH65SPGnLHrfOqWAKKknPfRUhnPXwA477nXizjxxu1oPG EAMQK8Ob5m4G1y429D4rA3Cp3oSeew7udveZIW/45AyJ8LD86mhqb6IZzubftaGVxtMF 2iX2rbpFhoVORWpmBvyG0vIMQB53GxWBRTXn6Eh0yNHUnQMfwob8W5bWsninDLSdL8Ek TkWA==
X-Received: by 10.205.75.74 with SMTP id yz10mr4226488bkb.179.1370073064320; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 00:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ([83.228.77.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jy7sm7864165bkb.6.2013.06.01.00.51.02 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Jun 2013 00:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51A9A7E2.7000907@jitsi.org>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 10:50:58 +0300
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37D144@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37D144@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmiuGNfUugiviAQp7ITSwDrTwQjiH7QhDnZ17f3AY1orv0t9KmasloAuViov7KYwm1xs2Gg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:51:06 -0000

Hey Christer,

Apologies for the lag.

On 30.05.13, 10:44, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Emil,
>
> The draft says:
>
> 	"For the sake of interoperability this specification strongly advises
>     	against the use of multiple m= lines for a single media type."

This should probably be clarified. The above referred mostly to a 
browser's expectations and default offers. Multiple m= lines can confuse 
a number of existing legacy endpoints which is why they should be 
avoided when initiating a session that could reach a similar device (and 
by default this should be assumed for any session).

If applications *know* that they need to have multiple m= lines of a 
given type they can request this the same way they could do it with Plan B:

    If the application wishes, it can request that a given
    media source be placed onto a separate m= line, by setting a new
    .content property on the desired MediaStreamTrack; the values for the
    .content property are those defined for the a=content attribute in
    [RFC4796].

I'll make sure this is part of the next version.

Does this make sense?

Emil

> My understanding is that the usage of multiple m= lines for a single media type would not affect the mechanism as such, but I just want to verify that :)
>
> Also, there ARE "legacy" implementations that use multiple m= lines for a single media type (e.g. video enabled devices using two video m= lines: one for camera content, and one for slides).
>
> So, while I definitely think that legacy interoperability shall be taken into consideration, I would not like to make such strong statements. In my opinion (the draft also talks about it), the usage of multiple simultaneous SSRCs per m- line is a much bigger issue when it comes to legacy interoperability.
>
> Also, in CLUE we have been working on signaling scenarios with multiple m= lines per media type.
 >
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Emil Ivov
> Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 22:00
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] No Plan
>
> Hey all,
>
> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many others that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate a negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a little bit less.
>
> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
>
> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the intricacies of multi-source scenarios to application-specific signalling, with potentially a little help from RTP.
>
> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the interoperability requirements that concerned them can still be met with "no plan". Of course they would have to be addressed by application-specific signalling and/or signalling gateways.
>
> Comments are welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> Emil
>
> --
> https://jitsi.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> .
>

-- 
https://jitsi.org