Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal

Silvia Pfeiffer <> Thu, 06 June 2013 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85AC21F96FE for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oF540nehq-nd for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601D521F9704 for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fb19so4044511obc.23 for <>; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0aewtvWHcdcte5z3eVCAc6/SaW9dPQMfgT6iDcadOoU=; b=MwPWaxDVLYmmn5WRS75i6yTJPGXHKk5AXJ33JMXVI36uqUY2uyvka5rX0ePi2nRey2 8rMF6yuj9lVKsDGvdDMBL2hLRvv8zm0O9MYNJGYvFok54WvHkgnqnQR2jgC+BbM+mzeF q10V2upjbYwtAPZXdp33tregeFIbHUM4EZ3ks07cxaAsyN31Xz144Z3t3sTdNoYkfqow k2c8Z+XSGj5NzbcGGOk3aIuExXtfLt2d7Jr8NNsjsrxQSkb66hS0W8Zi1n5w211IUwcJ CilRZCcGcL+JBezsrim0IFTlch0rjbhpv4/fasvGzlpyajIdnxNnsL++WUjcZkpnVjN9 e8Dg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xy6mr17407204obc.1.1370502866260; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:14:06 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:14:32 -0000

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Cullen Jennings <> wrote:
> I've trying to help you explain and I keep asking for an example but I don't think we have had a complete example yet. I know you think there is a complete example so let me try and be more specific so perhaps we can get to the bottom of the disconnect.
> Let me try to be specific.
> Say an application running on Alice's browser want to generate an offer that says the browser is ready to send and receive 2 streams of video and 1 stream of audio look like? Imagine that one of the video streams is a document camera running at high res but low frame rate while the other is video of the speaker running at a higher frame rate.  What exactly does the SDP passed from the browser to the JS applications look like.  I agree the applications can do whatever it wants to communicate the relevant data to the far end so I don't care about  the signaling protocol or JSON  that JS app can send across the wire. But next question, can the far end start sending media immediately to the browser? Finally the far end does something that causes the applications to generate an SDP answer from the JS applications to Alice's browser. I want and example of that that looks like in the cases where the far end a) accepted all the video streams and b) rejected some but not all of the video streams.
> If we can get an simple example like this sorted out, then perhaps it will be easy to extrapolate to the ones in the say the use case document and start looking at things like number of round trips and audio clipping.

Wouldn't that simply be multiplexed over one PeerConnection in the
browser using addStream()? I have an application like that working. I
can dig out the SDP packets that the browser sends in this case, if
you are interested.