IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Fri, 19 October 2012 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
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 9D74B21F8594 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmK0U1H5+64B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41C721F8589 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 20FFB1EB858C; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.76]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:55:47 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)
Thread-Index: AQHNrXUNkW4RjXahQS+tE0/0W+sns5fACBqAgAADuoCAAGCjoA==
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:55:46 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0130A402@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <201210182110.q9ILAq4K4836140@shell01.TheWorld.com> <5080F1E9.2050509@alvestrand.no> <5080F509.5020102@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <5080F509.5020102@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:55:49 -0000

On 19 October 2012 07:37 Stefan Hakansson LK wrote:
> 
> One discussion I think we've not had yet is the granularity the API
> could report "can't use this SDP blob" on. Say that a new offer (in on
> ongoing sessions) was received indicating the addition of two audio and
> two video tracks (from Alice to Bob). What if Bob's browser could
> decode
> both audio tracks but has resources to handle only one of the video
> tracks, should it be able to tell so (perhaps with the result that two
> audio and one video track was added)? Or should the update of the
> session just fail?
> 

The update to the session should not just fail. Normally in this case the answer would simple reject the one video stream and not the whole offer.  

Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email