Re: [rtcweb] Working Group Last Call: JSEP

Hi Colin,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is a well written draft. I think Section 6 needs work, along the
> lines of the recent discussion and updates to BUNDLE, but the rest of the
> document seems to be in good shape.
>
> Section 6 says:
>
>    Note: The following algorithm does not yet have WG consensus but is
>    included here as something concrete for the working group to discuss.
>
> I don’t think what’s written here is right yet. The RTP specification has
> rules for forming RTP packets into RTP streams based on their SSRC, and for
> associating RTCP packets with RTP streams. Similarly, BUNDLE, as of -35,
> has rules for mapping RTP streams to m= sections based on the MID. This
> section seems to be trying to replicate these, rather than building on
> them.
>
> I think this section should leave the mapping from RTP/RTCP packets to RTP
> streams to RTP, and the mapping from RTP streams to m= sections to SDP (and
> BUNDLE, if used). It should talk instead about how RTP streams associated
> with m= sections are mapped onto RtpSenders and RtpReceivers. This may
> sound like just a terminology difference, but I think it’s important to get
> the layering and division of responsibilities right, if the protocol is to
> be maintainable and extensible.
>
>
I've entered the above as an issue in the tracker:
https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/364 .

Further commentary on the list, please.

>
> I also had some minor nits on the rest of the document:
>
> - Section 5.1.1, 1st paragraph: The list of mandatory to implement
> standards is “derived from the requirements outlined in
> [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]”. Should the draft say somewhere that “RTP
> media transport MUST be implemented according to
> [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]”?
>
> - Section 5.1.1: It’s easy to skim-read R-5 this as “MUST”, since all the
> other requirements are MUST. It might be more visually distinct if written
> as  “SHALL NOT” rather than “MUST NOT”.
>
> - Section 5.1.1: R-16 should be removed.
>
> - Section 5.2.1, top of page 38: The header extension is in Section 14 of
> BUNDLE, not Section 11 (also second bullet point on page 39).
>
> - Section 5.8, 3rd bullet on page 60: I suggest changing “If the MID
> header extension is supported, prepare to demux RTP data intended for this
> media section“ to “…prepare to demux RTP streams intended…”, to match the
> recent discussion around terminology in BUNDLE.
>
>
I've entered these as a single editorial issue, at the moment,
https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/365 .  If any need further
discussion, we can break the relevant pieces out.

Thanks for your review!

Ted

> Colin
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Oct 2016, at 20:25, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The chairs would like to start a working group last call on
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-jset-17 to end on November 9th, 2016, 17:00 KST.
>
> Please review thoroughly, as working through the last comments will be the
> major effort of our working group meeting in Seoul.
>
> From a process perspective, we will be working through the comments as
> issues against the github repo.  In order to accommodate folks who do not
> use github, the chairs will enter a new issue for any issue raised on the
> mailing list.  That means that if you are raising a new issue, please send
> it to the list with a new subject line so that the chairs catch it.
>
> If you prefer, you may also enter the issues at
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep.  If you do so, please send a copy of
> the issue to the mailing list so that conversation and resolution occurs
> here.
>
> This has been a long road, but this a very major milestone.  Thanks to the
> authors for their work so far.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted, Cullen, Sean
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers
> of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Javascript Session Establishment Protocol
>         Authors         : Justin Uberti
>                           Cullen Jennings
>                           Eric Rescorla
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-17.txt
>         Pages           : 94
>         Date            : 2016-10-21
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes the mechanisms for allowing a Javascript
>    application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session
>    via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API, and
>    discusses how this relates to existing signaling protocols.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-17
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-17
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> --
> Colin Perkins
> https://csperkins.org/
>
>
>
>
>