IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - SDP offer/answer clarification

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2013 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
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 33D3B21F93C4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
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 1K8XVV-dknQF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x233.google.com (mail-ea0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C64321F938E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z16so3269818ead.38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=EP5aam1LbgHH5U6U9fB16vDqQuaQB+rylhamkL3kvkM=; b=s234ckd3TsYOkAZj1EJBtK3VYDlomC2FJbga7v6uC9UWqqzgnLgbW7O7ddVEH4p0lf aTWNiIzXlW/fbFfH4V0hWALe5frJ2Rrd7G3TYbWnOcCW/xH5GxlaH7H8tZu8rm5+OqTP dxsdm3ucA+y43wigRBnlvKPXOZfdINFsU5byaB15nmv2ln1Dp2EhotzJ0Y9d/ZFA0Mld haRoPPXFdqZoDLiMTt596q4h2RbpzQ4Td5HXEla97c/UpfdfkBjgPJhyv8XfNUbfaNfH 5Y5Kqts3xYLxuqrqSh++nDFHh59k1+lR+40WGzF/r31olwwE9Xb5pAYc6UtLr1iiH3G1 70mQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.149.12 with SMTP id w12mr15372132eej.135.1370255468235; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ([109.64.225.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l6sm83846279eef.12.2013.06.03.03.31.06 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Emil Ivov' <emcho@jitsi.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:29:53 +0300
Message-ID: <020e01ce6045$4b07dee0$e1179ca0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac5gRUj6/oll8pTVRnuqLmPGNIrG0A==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - SDP offer/answer clarification
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 10:31:10 -0000

Hi,
I read the draft and the email thread and I think I have similar questions
to the ones Cullen made.
My understanding was that the proposal is to  do one SDP offer/ answer
exchange  and add remove streams using other means (not specified)
I looked at the offer example is section 3 and it has 

a=max-send-ssrc:{*:1}                      // declaring maximum
   a=max-recv-ssrc:{*:4}                     // number of SSRCs

I have some clarifying questions?

1. Is the proposal to always offer max-send-ssrc=1?

2. What is the answer in this case can it be max-send-ssrc=4?

3. If max-send-ssrc >1 in the answer and the m-line has, for example,
support for H.264 and VP8 with max-send-ssrc=2  and de-multiplexing is based
on pt number, it will require four pt in the m-line since there can be two
VP8 or two H.264 RTP streams 

   m=video 5002 RTP/SAVPF 97 98 99 100
   a=mid:video
   a=rtcp-mux
   a=rtpmap:97 VP8/90000        
   a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000        
   a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:100 H264/90000
Is my understanding correct?


Roni



> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Emil Ivov
> Sent: 29 May, 2013 10:00 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] No Plan
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many
> others that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate a
> negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a little
bit
> less.
> 
> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
> 
> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the intricacies
of
> multi-source scenarios to application-specific signalling, with
potentially a
> little help from RTP.
> 
> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the
interoperability
> requirements that concerned them can still be met with "no plan". Of
course
> they would have to be addressed by application-specific signalling and/or
> signalling gateways.
> 
> Comments are welcome!
> 
> Cheers,
> Emil
> 
> --
> https://jitsi.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email