Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 04 October 2012 11:57 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 EBA5D21F8681 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 04:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.825
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.825 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.177, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 SYYD+fl1EwVa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 04:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E9F21F867B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 04:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f7d6d0000042ea-d7-506d79a7bc25
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 63.D2.17130.7A97D605; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:57:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.99]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:57:26 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:57:26 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments
Thread-Index: Ac2iI/XWrwwBPADvT568luJcEfqkxAAAvQKQ
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A7BCD92@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A7BCD49@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <506D73CF.80701@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <506D73CF.80701@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A7BCD92ESESSCMS0356e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7yytwAg49f+SyO9XWxWaz9187u wORxZcIVVo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGXcPvOEvWC9RsWJxsfsDYwzlLoYOTkkBEwk NvT2s0PYYhIX7q1n62Lk4hASOMUoManzDTOEM59RYv3cTiCHg4NNwEKi+582SIOIQLBE7/P3 jCA2i4CKxNSmG0wgtrCArsTNoxPYIWr0JA5862WFsI0kFt7aCFbPKxAucWTCRGYQW0igQmLa 0ZnsIOM5BbQlNmyxAAkzAt3z/dQasJHMAuISt57MZ4K4U0BiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIepFJe60 r2eEqM+XOHljCRvEKkGJkzOfsExgFJmFZNQsJGWzkJRBxPUl9kw8BWVrSyxb+JoZwtaTuLfj Lyuy+AJG9lWMwrmJmTnp5eZ6qUWZycXF+Xl6xambGIERdXDLb4MdjJvuix1ilOZgURLn1VPd 7y8kkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBkbfvRErbtO7l5xzWXqpJXmj3nf3MrPb4xUb3 zbqCVbVEjxWrNV+SuH1yhqy4yLesA3ttZjDHrouWFhXtZHLtrfJdMGOP25fC/xxHNiXO/3Nl 5rPPDW/W5650mJRx/EjvWT6Vcqa6+k1NB5vqN+bMF7DlOta0+tm1m/Lf/rItneX/iS29uIZL Q4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAEhklVJ2AgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments
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, 04 Oct 2012 11:57:30 -0000

Hi,

>> A couple of comments on the cloning stuff in JSEP:
>>
>> Q1. The document doesn’t say how the cloning is performed. If that is outside the scope of JSEP, and belongs to the W3C API spec, I think it should be mentioned.
>>
>> Q2. The text in section 4.7.2 says:
>>
>>                “As a result of this cloning, the application will end up with N
>>                parallel sessions, each with a local and remote description and their
>>                own local and remote addresses.”
≫
>> I think the “own local addresses” wording is a little misleading, as each clone will share the same local address.
>
> Not sure what to say here.
>
> I can see multiple ways to implement this - some will end up with different local ports, some won't.

Earlier in the same section, the text says:

        “Since the clone uses the same local description as its
        parent, creating a clone will fail if it is not possible to reserve
        the same resources for the clone as have already been reserved by the
        parent.”

> If the non-local (reflexive?) candidates are allocated using STUN on a per-port basis, addresses could be different too.

My assumption, and understanding of the text, is that a clone is a… eeeeh… clone - meaning that the local address is the same :)

Regards,

Christer