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

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97D11A063C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.94
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.94 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pi41usZnLrPd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8E81A048A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f4c8e0000012f5-6e-5320a114ca91
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DF.D6.04853.411A0235; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:01:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([]) by ESESSHC003.ericsson.se ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:01:56 +0100
From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
Thread-Index: Ac8+HSfEqf9sT+k2TCiwilJvB9C34g==
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:01:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF8B463@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7IQoVgg7ubrC3W/mtnd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxraH99gLtnFVvP1wjbmB8SRHFyMnh4SAicSqzx9ZIWwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAmcYJSY2byTEcJZwihx7fg6dpAqNoFAia37FrCB2CIC6hKXH14AiwsLGEms37eV ESJuLnFxySmoGj2Jkzdug8VZBFQlXn+/BBTn4OAV8JVYvI4fJMwItPj7qTVMIDazgLjErSfz mSAOEpBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T+oQ5UkFt3+DFWvJ3Fj6hQ2CFtbYtnC12D1vAKCEidnPmGZwCg8 C8nYWUhaZiFpmYWkZQEjyypGyeLU4uLcdCMDvdz03BK91KLM5OLi/Dy94tRNjMBQP7jlt9EO xpN77A8xSnOwKInzXmetCRISSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXA6Hot8tL2uRINaX6H bNfx3NPe5reeS0rLf7NhWd/WpOsrHrfOfh+RrcNX6zNlTmjxRY3i5k1pW46E3S8tLNudt8iq Jen2Tq9OS//8pX9//37LUGZ0e8f03c8+WhevXBDt83zlc33HSVI9p70eTvn89ke5yHWNRUu/ zl4lFxfK0y68cmdV0/5QGyWW4oxEQy3mouJEAKh63HxDAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/d95AfR5YthE7O4he4yaTCOj8h1o
Subject: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Mar 2014 18:02:09 -0000


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.