Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No Plan)
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 03 June 2013 21:21 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 A8FDF11E80F4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.844, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=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 bLVWNDiAsvRb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E3B11E8108 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jnCV1l0071YDfWL5CxGeEv; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:16:38 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jxGd1l01R3ZTu2S3gxGdDf; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:16:37 +0000
Message-ID: <51AD07B4.3070702@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:16:36 -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> <51A65DB8.9060702@alum.mit.edu> <51A880A7.7010908@jitsi.org> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113528171@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <51A8EAB7.8080206@jitsi.org> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11352940B@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <51ACD224.8080100@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <51ACD224.8080100@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=1370294198; bh=yC2M7raLj1egp+YbmG87QHDNYn1I5KqcLFUltIX16Wc=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=oKoNy+/rYC3Ki8tA/J2M/R9Bb/AhaHaLLzc3PD7emvRc5vHCWCBXQwIaZFMcEqnbI Lgugu9eeHjsTVjD4EBPtvjwocLpHuGpV5CvZzZueJF5zoxQKsMIuMo3jt5HLItCCN1 rD2l+QXaImvqaqPzYB4nVrU1lUTHSsyKRZRYceT1nAP9Gu6MV9wdJ3hiBX/S8965NQ zaOe+q0dilwv9KNFivqCFyCDgUvNfLPZO5T7Gvj5ZVuStmcCvUe5tATvxZttN4VdVk 3yNKVCByklg+nCmC8NR71zccdUf5h+nkKPRPPrnYsRBfZwy/eV9B3liBsjGvCfuUEI hTJT1V6aWCjmw==
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: 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 21:21:58 -0000
I don't understand why we would be talking about translating from one of these plans to another. AFAIK they are *alternatives*, and that we will at some point agree on one, and that will be the only one implemented. Thanks, Paul On 6/3/13 1:28 PM, Emil Ivov wrote: > Hey Cullen, Paul, all > > On 31.05.13, 22:19, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: >> On 31.05.2013, at 12:23 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote: >> >>> Certainly. Could you please post the SDP that you would like to see >>> translated in a way that's compatible with "No Plan"? >>> >>> Emil >> >> We can start with the SDP in plan A > > The example in "7.3. Many Videos" looks like a good start: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a-00#section-7.3 > > Here it is: > > v=0 > o=- 20518 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.1 > s= > t=0 0 > c=IN IP4 203.0.113.1 > a=ice-ufrag:F7gI > a=ice-pwd:x9cml/YzichV2+XlhiMu8g > a=fingerprint:sha-1 42:89:c5:c6:55:9d:39:f9:b6:eb:e7 > a=group:BUNDLE m0 m1 m2 m3 > > m=audio 56600 RTP/SAVPF 0 96 > a=mid:m0 > a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 > a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000 > a=ptime:20 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > [ICE Candidates] > > m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m1 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > a=bundle-only > a=ssrc:11111 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9 > > m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m2 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > a=bundle-only > a=ssrc:22222 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9 > > m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m3 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > a=bundle-only > a=ssrc:333333 cname:45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9 > > > An offer generated by a "No Plan" browser in this case would look > something like this: > > v=0 > o=- 20518 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.1 > s= > t=0 0 > c=IN IP4 203.0.113.1 > a=ice-ufrag:F7gI > a=ice-pwd:x9cml/YzichV2+XlhiMu8g > a=fingerprint:sha-1 42:89:c5:c6:55:9d:39:f9:b6:eb:e7 > a=group:BUNDLE m0 m1 > > m=audio 56600 RTP/SAVPF 96 0 > a=mid:m0 > a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000 > a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 > a=ptime:20 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > [ICE candidates] > > m=video 56602 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 > a=mid:m1 > a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000 > a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d0028;packetization-mode=1 > a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000 > a=sendrecv > a=rtcp-mux > [ICE candidates] > > I. Talking to legacy > > In case you need to talk to an actual legacy (as in widely deployed SIP) > endpoint, the above would translate into a regular two-stream call. Both > Plan A and No Plan would lead to essentially the same result (if we > accept that older endpoints won't throw an exception at the sight of 4 > m= lines) so not much to discuss here. > > II. Talking to Plan A style endpoints > > If you need to talk to a Plan A endpoint you basically have the > following options: > > 1. You use JavaScript to prettify the "No Plan" SDP and turn it into > something that looks like "Plan A". Not my favourite option, but I am > sure some would like to use it. Maybe vendors of Plan A equipment would > even distribute JS libs that do this. It would basically all come down > to generating one ssrc attribute and two additional m=lines and > appending this to the existing SDP string. > > 2. The application retrieves SSRCs from the browser, adds additional > application-specific signalling to it and then sends the whole thing to > a signalling gateway. The gateway (which you would also have with Plan > A) would convert the SDP into what it needs it to be. > > The application specific signalling can look like this: > > { > "firstStream": > { > "SSRC": "11111", > "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9" > }, > "secondStream": > { > "SSRC": "22222", > "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9" > }, > "thirdStream": > { > "SSRC": "333333", > "CNAME": "45:5f:fe:cb:81:e9" > }, > } > > 3. In Plan B, section 3.1 talks about generating "Plan A" style SDP with > the help of .content properties. If browser vendors are willing to > implement support for this then I suppose it would be a third option. > > III. Talking to other WebRTC applications > > This is the fun case and the one we should be most concerned with. Let's > imagine that the answerer needs to add a fourth video stream. To make > this work endpoints would need to do the following: > > a) with Plan A and draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add: > - send application specific signalling to the offerer > - have a new O/A exchange > > b) with Plan A: > - have a new O/A exchange > - potentially risk glare with some impact on user experience > > c) with No Plan: > ... nothing > > I am intentionally not going into how all plans would require additional > metadata that would place SSRC 1 left and 2 right as I don't think this > conveys any meaningful differences. > > Comments on the above are welcome. We could also move to another > scenario from the Plan A draft, if you believe that 7.3 is not > representative enough. > > Emil > >
- 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