Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 30 May 2013 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 C51DC21F89C3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 0cLpQMg8ILKt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BDB21F92FB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iCuD1l0041ZXKqc53GttZ7; Thu, 30 May 2013 16:53:53 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iGtt1l0053ZTu2S3hGttwA; Thu, 30 May 2013 16:53:53 +0000
Message-ID: <51A78420.40308@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 12:53:52 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <BLU404-EAS183E8C6EC78BF3F108964C793900@phx.gbl> <51A66B3B.6070005@gmail.com> <CAL02cgTjJ7RrOZWUUFHCsEGSFSHSkDEt2kEfXB94HV2VzyDPPQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A715E6.6060703@telecomitalia.it> <51A76CBA.7030106@alum.mit.edu> <51A775FC.8080003@telecomitalia.it>
In-Reply-To: <51A775FC.8080003@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1369932833; bh=xVnl6pIJpoEGi4H6Cpclv1N+KiKO9Z2drWgpSQvbrAM=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=nbLZjEZ1wMdgjr8gWgZo3EOlxTUgvOmjbq6HaQAXNTGhEBuWv+nSNYvOwziD60NhS 3OoS50d5XmGj+YUMv2c5mXRtzSwVUKP30p6mrr0gNVeHX+ppySERykl2Y8LMHaaC3j +0DYpoujBucWWDOz9n9teRBBXtO7fCPyAb5XTjsDHv+Oz+jU14+txl7L9KiBWIn7Oz TVot00osVL2psSXuSkfMAGz38Rc9xFszWmLFuATYYnA74N50fezYNCZ4CGqm3ivBGS g+NU4GCn+5k1Nx06gqvbdUhXsdWzYrCo/PgNoZTpVXHsrgIWQwhg6k1q90nJNP01yP 5ImNhzY8iAapw==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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, 30 May 2013 16:54:00 -0000

On 5/30/13 11:53 AM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
> On 5/30/13 5:14 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> 1. sender gets the additional local tracks
>>>
>>> 2. sender tells the receiver on the app-specific signalling channel
>>>      (assuming a plain-english-over-something one): "I can also send you
>>>      video and audio of a webcam I've just installed in the girls locker
>>>      room. They'll have SSRC xxx and yyy" (xxx and yyy retrieved through
>>>      JS API -- kind of what exists in Chrome today for stats)
>>>
>>> 3. receiver responds "Shoot!"
>>
>> What does the receiver say if it can use the media, but cannot receive
>> it over the *existing* audio and video m-lines where it is receiving
>> other media already?
>
> I may have misinterpreted the draft, but it seems to me the whole point
> here is about having WebRTC endpoints support multiple SSRCs on the same
> m-line. If that's the case, an endpoint not supporting that would
> qualify as "legacy". It would be behind a gateway anyway, and the
> gateway function would be in the best position to translate both SDP and
> media in a way it can digest.

"legacy" and "decomposed" are not the same thing.

Presumably the design center for webrtc is a browser running on one 
system with a single display. And in that case everything to a single 
address makes sense.

But consider webrtc in the context of clue/telepresence. A browser be a 
very good basis for a controller for a telepresence room - providing the 
UI for managing a telepresence system. But that room will also have 
multiple displays. Each may have its own rendering hw.

Or, if that is too extreme for you, consider a simple PC running a 
browser and connecting to a telepresence room. The PC may be putting 
several video streams into windows, and be happy to get them on a single 
address/port. But the *other* end may be a sip-based clue system, 
decomposed, that can't group all of the streams into a single bundle. 
This is not a *legacy* case - we are still designing clue.

	Thanks,
	Paul