[rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

at the IETF last week there was consensus in the AVTEXT WG meeting to
adopt the pause/resume draft [1] as a WG draft.

In rtcweb/webrtc we're have the situation that we're discussing so 
called "doo-hickeys" as an API surface where the web app (amongst other 
things) can pause and resume the sending of a track. This can
be signaled with the direction attribute and a SDP O/A exchange (and the 
app pausing/resuming sending of a track would presumably lead to a 
"negotiationneeded" event being fired).

But I think we should in addition require the browser to signal it
according to one of the methods in [1] (e.g. TMMBN = 0), and also
understand that signaling (a browser receiving TMMBN = 0 must know that
the other end-point will pause sending).

My argument is that we know that many dislike SDP in rtcweb, and a
likely development is that it will be removed in a later version. My
speculation is that signaling as outlined in [1] will then be used for
pause/resume. If we support this from the beginning earlier
implementations could more easily interop with those later versions.


Stefan

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause-05.txt