IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Wed, 08 May 2013 16:13 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 495A121F958A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 SK+MnT9oe-lV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com (mail-ee0-f46.google.com [74.125.83.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C280221F9588 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b57so1066568eek.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 May 2013 09:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received: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=1ZXuR5soB6KIhqpQ58dZX7X2o5zXdR95dinNjb9vIo8=; b=Zw94QSnse3ZByUzMVePuenjEYaFrn97QnTVr+rIUZG7ZZD6E/mNhHi9/cyPuyZk+5L Dxs6vmjynhpSVbBgK7vJ7KNttR1dleXeV39OKY4a1zmDZWOFzI0LOny4H3TStZGoddpM anQYwYBWkOI0zo6mnmBczLgYXKFSmRlnniD1d+jfJh5Ubm5iS+C6j8sYtSBdqYZ4iWTq 4aokhUy94rz/vIrR+ctFBNi/Cs5YyrTmm0Z/IYClg/N36uGEt43s+mjy07F1fl6lZcLC afLbwT2xbbYmigybWuJeFrIiBtvuBjo7gRCabwbSQVfOXHLqTa0qxog5vyq50TKi7UWa z6Mg==
X-Received: by 10.14.203.73 with SMTP id e49mr18447871eeo.20.1368029593599; Wed, 08 May 2013 09:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ([83.228.76.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k43sm46271379een.2.2013.05.08.09.13.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 May 2013 09:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <518A7994.8040303@jitsi.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 19:13:08 +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/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com> <518A304A.1030609@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnVvsQMxM1rypF74m45qc8-EYPo4GtC2Cr=32PUz=TPABQ@mail.gmail.com> <518A7588.8060300@jitsi.org> <CABkgnnX+HRHbdPj3uHDRCzJDHedPEE-nBDzyhbWJYrx-mo_Riw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnX+HRHbdPj3uHDRCzJDHedPEE-nBDzyhbWJYrx-mo_Riw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXuosTLhyQ7cFlEKW/h30HzMWb6+UflXxGB0aLnHnrpARLtLBqZBP5lgv7HOEV9pdxNF6A
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:13:20 -0000

On 08.05.13, 19:08, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 08:55, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
>>> This doesn't worry me in the slightest.  Legacy endpoints and those
>>> that have trouble accessing SSRC information wont be able to use lots
>>> of streams.
>>
>> I don't agree with this. Unavailable SSRC information could mean a bunch
>> of things and not only "I am a legacy application and I don't know how
>> to talk to my media stack".
>>
>> There's also the case of de-coupled applications for example. I may want
>> to invite you into a conference that's hosted on an RTP translator. I
>> don't necessarily know who else will be connecting to that translator
>> and requiring that I learn this is 1) unnecessary 2) potentially
>> extremely complicated in many cases.
> 
> I separated the two classes.  There are legacy apps that don't produce
> SSRC.  And there are apps that find it difficult to get SSRC info.  In
> both cases, PT demux is not going to be an option beyond a certain
> scale.

Well in that case the "won't be able to use lots of streams" part
doesn't necessarily apply. In the RTP translator case described above
one could easily have hundreds of SSRCs and hundreds of streams.

This would actually be all the more reason not to mandate SSRCs during O/A.


-- 
https://jitsi.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email