Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Fri, 12 October 2012 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6FC521F86F7 for <>; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.85
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.440, BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_NO_MORE_OFFER=3.189, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UdFrSCeOVsGK for <>; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3453B21F86E8 for <>; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2675; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1350057546; x=1351267146; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=qQfdQ7mwgM0JQWiu1KeOzlZllfj8KYGd8ld3Ami6CgA=; b=Jwo6rGx6ehlKgAGbGyKzSO1JZKygCb/S3XYmgpnNf8jPaOLn+5RsB/JT tEEGyuQFFSg1Hqi3XegXqDaAiHAoLv4GdcLGszaBKYdIxxU0RPRvsRNPQ 6uQ/GsYmFddEAnbbyS2l2hsOyrR94IPAWTzZ5xCQYzoQ2kJ9oKgQrK/Ao c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAOI9eFCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABEv1+BCIIgAQEBAwESASc/BQsCAQgYChQQIRElAgQOBQgTB4dQAwkGmk2WNA2JVIpsZoVdYAOUGIx4gyKBa4Jtghc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,576,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="131045954"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2012 15:59:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9CFx5gf014666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:59:05 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:59:05 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
Thread-Index: AQHNqJKAP8TeNCVzQEOOplGvYGeDXw==
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:59:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--42.495500-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
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: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:59:06 -0000

On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Martin Thomson <> wrote:

> On 9 October 2012 13:05, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <> wrote:
>> 3264, SDP, 3261, and related documents are dealing with a bunch of things including what happens at media plane and signaling plane.
>> I'll note that though O/A is per dialog, there is only one O shared across multiple legs and when you create the O you don't know how many dialogs there will be. So from the media point of view (covered more in SDP spec than 3264) there is one O with a bunch of A. From signaling point of view there are a bunch of O/A pairs).
>> The dialog is SIP signaling concept not a media plane level concept. We moved the signaling part out of the browser and into the JS. But the media part is still in the browser. So as 3264 says, after the offer is constructed, we have to be willing to receive media for all the codec type in the offer. When we get the answer 3264 makes it clear that one MAY stop receiving the codecs that were in the offer but not selected in the answer. However, this can not be done until the signaling layer is sure that no more offers will be honored. Since that signalling part of Offer/Answer is in the JS, the API need to to have a way to signal what the MAY part should do and that is the PRANSWER vs ANSWER.
> That's a consistent and logical view.  It is not what RFC 3264 says.
> It may even be the only reasonable solution.
>> People keep trying to make this some complex weird argument invoking the SIP deities of the past and quoting incomprehensible phrases from various RFC caved in stone [...]
> Quit beating around the bush: it's me you are talking about.
> It's not a complex weird argument, it's this:
>  PRANSWER is not described in RFC 3264.
> draft-*-jsep might say something about it, but I'd have to guess about
> what to do if I were to implement the feature and that doesn't help
> with interoperation.
> If there was text that described the above, plus the implications in
> some detail (including what resources can be released as they relate
> to the SDP), then we're good.  I don't even think that writing this is
> especially hard. 

Agree that text has to be a clear. But provision is a term from 3261 which is referenced from 3264 and bunch of this also relies on SDP RFC too. Some of the key information about it is 3262. This is all intertwined but my key point is that I don't think we are trying to do anything that was not part of 3264 offer / answer. This is more or less a SIP 180.