Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments

["Jim Barnett" <[e-mail]>]

If the local address isn’t the same, we shouldn’t call it a ‘clone’.  I think that people will expect everything to be the same on a ‘clone’.  

 

-          Jim

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:57 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments

 

Hi,

 

>> A couple of comments on the cloning stuff in JSEP:

>> 

>> Q1. The document doesn’t say how the cloning is performed. If that is outside the scope of JSEP, and belongs to the W3C API spec, I think it should be mentioned.

>> 

>> Q2. The text in section 4.7.2 says:

>> 

>>                “As a result of this cloning, the application will end up with N

>>                parallel sessions, each with a local and remote description and their

>>                own local and remote addresses.”

≫

>> I think the “own local addresses” wording is a little misleading, as each clone will share the same local address.

> 

> Not sure what to say here.

> 

> I can see multiple ways to implement this - some will end up with different local ports, some won't.

 

Earlier in the same section, the text says:

 

        “Since the clone uses the same local description as its

         parent, creating a clone will fail if it is not possible to reserve

         the same resources for the clone as have already been reserved by the

         parent.”

 

> If the non-local (reflexive?) candidates are allocated using STUN on a per-port basis, addresses could be different too.

 

My assumption, and understanding of the text, is that a clone is a… eeeeh… clone - meaning that the local address is the same :)

 

Regards,

 

Christer