IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 11 October 2012 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 4BA0721F8734 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 2d38N4QrCWVH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCDD21F871D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f956d0000011c3-c6-5076e8d4d725
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9C.CC.04547.4D8E6705; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:42:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.243]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:42:11 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:38:18 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
Thread-Index: Ac2nxFkYlxHAcOGpQSSR4wekASssMwAAhcYH
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAFAA7E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <506B0367.4000103@ericsson.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111867718@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD03A6@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11187F8F1@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD087E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1118810C3@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>, <5076E4CD.2020602@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <5076E4CD.2020602@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6VF2UBBvM/ilkc6+tis1j7r53d gcnjyoQrrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MroOPeWreAHR8XPe6tYGhgb2LsYOTgkBEwk lh+36WLkBDLFJC7cW8/WxcjFISRwilGi98hEZghnIaPEq88rwBrYBCwkuv9pgzSICARL9D5/ zwhiswioSuzfeosJxBYWsJRYtHk/G0SNlcSaW9eZIWwjiWe77oPZvALhEgt7u9lBbCGBjcwS bQsVQGxOAV2J1yfes4LYjEAHfT+1Bmwms4C4xK0n85kgDhWQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/qHpRiTvt 6xkh6nUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/gaaq+gxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFpWcDIsopRODcxMye9 3EgvtSgzubg4P0+vOHUTIzBCDm75rbqD8c45kUOM0hwsSuK81lv3+AsJpCeWpGanphakFsUX leakFh9iZOLglGpgbBHRXXFGbGVLVUiiLveHR4cXOme9f3W0/2vUhM4Lk14cPNLQtCKjd+nR OD/Dd0sdxOe7bWnfOyfmn0jK0vkth6ZmMs8uj88wuLBm273PfZLLpGLVHPSlCytmGrybwb/6 5tpZWq6c2htsrq4wjPRg2vhVLVP1qBPLlOaVGulc247ZbUh935DzQ4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRACQk 5LpeAgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:42:14 -0000

Hi,

>>> I have no problem with that. But, again, we do need to get the JSEP O/A sorted out. My suggesting is still that the base should be RFC 3264, and if we need to "relax" things we should very carefully look at those cases.
>> I have not seen any reason to relax 3264 yet but if something comes up, agree we should carefully look at the cases. I think we can just do straight up 3264. Arguments that SIP early media in a 180 is not compliant with 3264 are just wrong.
>
> This seems to be true as long as I consider the offer/180 exchange a
> separate SDP exchange from the offer/answer exchange, and abandon the
> concept that the final answer "updates" the 180 answer.
>
> Is that what you are saying, or did I squint the wrong way?

If you receive the SDP answer in a reliable 180 response, that IS an offer/answer exchange :)

That answer CANNOT be "updated" in another reliable 18x response, or in the 200 response. 

(You can receive a "copy" of the previously received SDP answer in the 18x/200 responses, but it will not update the previously received SDP answer)

Regards,

Christer

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email