IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP lines (JSEP Issue 27)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 30 March 2015 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 0B62C1ACCE2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_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 KXmvGIhZ8Y7O for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99E351ACC7F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (unknown [128.107.241.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C678622E260; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5519753D.1080907@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:18:43 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <30772BF4-B814-4CB2-932F-96885D0BD76E@iii.ca>
References: <5519753D.1080907@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/h-iGH8wj6SS83Wca2lJajgl2JAg>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP lines (JSEP Issue 27)
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:18:49 -0000

> On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> i=, u=, e=, p=, z=, r=
>  SHOULD NOT send, MUST ignore.

I don't think MUST ignore is correct. First to be clear, I'm not saying the browser needs to do anything with the info in theses lines. 

I think MAY ignore or not typically used by a webrtc browser might be a better way to say it. For example, if rtcweb device was taking a streaming video session via webrtc protocols, it might make sense for it to use the i= or u= particularly if the SDP had originally come from an RTSP stream that was gatewayed to WebRTC. Similarly if a browser reported the full SDP it had received in some stats interface, I would expect it not to ignore the lines but actually report what it was it received. 

To be clear, I'm not saying the browser needs to do anything with the info in theses lines - it's fine to ignore them. But that's very different from all webrtc things must ignore them. (and I agree with SHOULD NOT send part)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email