Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 03 June 2013 21:50 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 C6B5821F90A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 eqMjNdyFSj+Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D4A11E8126 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jnS91l0021c6gX858xo9qc; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:48:09 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jxo91l0053ZTu2S3jxo97G; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:48:09 +0000
Message-ID: <51AD0F18.5020202@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:48:08 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37D144@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <51A9A7E2.7000907@jitsi.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C380AA2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <51ACFF31.9090607@alum.mit.edu> <51AD0D98.2080302@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <51AD0D98.2080302@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1370296089; bh=qrrgppz4EW9M2ZTnu5Dw+N3a6wYAYD/vZSZ9b490qe8=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=DET+jqKyd3YnTO048hMnQTNku02ZxnLCmvH7k0R9p4wigoC46zzycAmrQdEJImbs1 0boE9zxc69mce5yAa853KPO2MeLlpos8pc1gAAuHKuW5JDE02LnU9wYLNCN2Dsl2Xr xz7N/SGaRtRL6lauGaxlFDknY7WtvwdCPwxXHq3bsFPXMFFGe35BXUi+SGdBmz9zT5 uOMhe04AwsfvfnfxRwDmLV1rk/03N50OguBC+p7KORPf+u4aRPn5kh2L/ev8JU9uku EIjir6EKnHQkxMdrt2o/CNz4Qbw0VCcozAO63sheS0q3UGQ2wMQCQwPOEPE/JAaKM5 DuIg0RI4ErPSg==
Cc: 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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:50:51 -0000
On 6/3/13 5:41 PM, Emil Ivov wrote: > > > On 03.06.13, 23:40, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> +1 >> >> The more we dig into this the more it looks like Plan B. > > I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. I did try to make it clear > that "No Plan" has a lot in common with "Plan B". The main differences > are that there is no expectation for SSRCs to be pre-announced and there > are requirements for WebRTC APIs to provide the tools necessary for apps > to control individual streams themselves. I now think that it is enough like plan B that the two should be collapsed together. Make the signaling of the explicit SSRCs optional when there is some other mechanism to agree upon them. Thanks, Paul > Emil > >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> On 6/1/13 7:05 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> I have nothing against a general recommendation to, for a given media >>> type, have as few m- lines as possible. >>> >>> But, I do think the draft need to point out that it is not always >>> possible, e.g. because: >>> >>> 1) m- lines have different characteristics (normally indicated using >>> SDP attributes) that does not "fit" all content for the given media >>> type; >>> 2) different protocols are used for different m- lines, even if the >>> media type is the same; or >>> 3) the remote endpoint only supports a single (or, another given >>> number) of sources per m- line. >>> >>> Etc. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Christer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Martin Thomson
- [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - PT based MUX Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mark Rejhon
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Barry Dingle
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Plan) Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Pl… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- [rtcweb] Plan xyz discussions; MMUSIC <> RTCweb R… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Peter Thatcher