IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - seq/sessionId vs sess-version/sess-id (Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2)

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 03 November 2011 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 B06181F0CAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 cIbLCfxd2ddO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA40B1F0CB9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c26ae0000035b9-87-4eb2e858d49e
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6B.8C.13753.858E2BE4; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 20:15:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.57]) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.116]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 20:15:36 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:15:36 +0100
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - seq/sessionId vs sess-version/sess-id (Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2)
Thread-Index: AcyK59ZYlpyUDRxNTFOtHnNrwuQvpADcv2WAAwB6FzA=
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852235789601@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058522341F4A8B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058522341F4A8B@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - seq/sessionId vs sess-version/sess-id (Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2)
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:15:41 -0000

Hi Cullen,

I am not sure I receied a reply from you (or anyone else) to the questions below.

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 19. lokakuuta 2011 15:50
To: Cullen Jennings; rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - seq/sessionId vs sess-version/sess-id (Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2)

 
Hi,

What is the relation between the seq/sessionId values and the SDP sess-version/sess-id values (part of the SDP o= line), and why do we need seq/sessionId in the first place?

AFAIK, the only reason for having the seq/sessionId values is when sending an OK message, since there will be no SDP (and therefor no SDP sess-version/sessionId). Or, are there any other reasons?

I think the draft should say something about the correlation.

And, IF we need seq/sessionId, should we say that the SDP sess-version/sess-id values must be identical - or, at least saying that they must be set and incremented according to the SDP rules? I think that would help in SIP/SDP interworking cases. Otherwise the interworking gateway will have to check, keep track of, and possibly modify, the sess-version/sess-id values.

Regards,

Christer






> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: 15. lokakuuta 2011 6:09
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
> Subject: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
> 
> 
> Jonathan and I submitted a new draft on setting up media based on the 
> SDP Offer/Answer model. The ASCII flows are a bit hard to read so 
> until I update them, I recommend reading the PDF version at
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-00.pdf
> 
> Clearly the draft is an early stage but we plan to revise it before 
> the deadline for the IETF 82. Love to get input - particularly on if 
> this looks like generally the right direction to go.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email