IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Fri, 31 July 2015 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961AC1B3443 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h6iYbr05j0yn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20AF61B3434 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdjr16 with SMTP id r16so47787081pdj.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dENu1p10Y4s1C2SVlYa4dyWOPemlQbqPOaGNnNE59FU=; b=vTNHbCnPIAhB89J7Gxrn9yd7BDMbUFmyc75EYNVEx8sQmTRxComonEcnQfFl7pMEOd JsaYhmSMZvaXI0CozwUn/jMkGZIWDP5T4SFQI4cGvvTgRoq4oiAs0wET6Lm+XOYo9f7Q zJAdu5uTzo6cI675gCg23lDl4qNxzR0s0sxA4vEyXGCgr0+04B1VSFGkUB+wTIrTyp2U 3pSeEMfDz/hpeDpLatQoZjsc4L5z2rb8RoL90IYFhogDBQJkpNONyTEsLx0PX67ZXZPb uQ1P6EsoYcuC/s11jURBnQJwnihrXrCaoYdeAeccWyaQfZ0qoqm/BquVFhfQwhCtBa6g wFSw==
X-Received: by 10.70.135.129 with SMTP id ps1mr9718635pdb.110.1438367506749; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.110] (c-71-227-237-49.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.227.237.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id un2sm8971060pac.28.2015.07.31.11.31.45 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-B817CC60-2FEA-4BA5-B3F0-C7BA5CC5C66F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxuSSdE2msiP2Saoaka_6UhZBQPoTk27f=6RRNi8-ARtKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:31:43 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <D8E1148E-D03A-40A7-8438-4B5AABDF959B@gmail.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGs_+AKNHhaJjB5udr9TZv7oFpJ7h3cJ_ToXUfUC5TEpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOH6zCEfuH6xh8-sPSmW3y4Vt2cDudfAAtw5MXq90oyWQ@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551E28A489A90A93FA2F8BDB28A0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CY1PR0501MB1579BC38B75CBC58744A970FEB8A0@CY1PR0501MB1579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <SN1PR0301MB15518198D375F21B973C091DB28A0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxvUUSEyCfJcrxTJj68qKZuw6Ddze1Aw1QxXvTnGXT-qfA@mail.gmail.com> <AF9C5DDA-451E-4ED4-A0AA-9853A3983D59@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B348E29DA@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAOJ7v-2B0zO7aAjpf9-39o-Bjr7UB9=78Ry17JP8Fff8z_PMWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvtn66yNf10_eSy-1wkD7PopWrmUNpcF+0O_VAzFXw0sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp_DwcE5ybS2yypcezo-42Y60FqabBPBBFTgCkPBhmDeNw@mail.gmail.com> <67196805-ED4E-49EA-83AA-3F4C37B5BC50@gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuSSdE2msiP2Saoaka_6UhZBQPoTk27f=6RRNi8-ARtKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/eEzvch2YFWHw_iJGbgdvOY5C_j8>
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:31:48 -0000

On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:57, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> 
> Why would the gateway need to negotiate non-mux if rtcp-mux is supported?

[BA] IMHO, Gateways should be required to support mux like any other WEBRTC endpoint, but this is not what it says in Section 2 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-gateways :

"If a gateway serves as a media relay into another RTP domain, it MAY choose to support only features available in that network. This means that it MAY choose to not support Bundle and any of the RTP/ RTCP extensions related to it, RTCP-Mux, or Trickle Ice. However, the gateway MUST support DTLS-SRTP, since this is required for interworking with WebRTC endpoints."

Assuming that browsers remove or do not implement non-mux, it seems prudent to require gateways to support mux so as to avoid negotiation failures. If we make that change then gateways would always negotiate RTCP-mux with browsers.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email