Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 03 June 2013 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 782BF11E80F6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 JrR59ECnPRek for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f42.google.com (mail-qe0-f42.google.com [209.85.128.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F8121F9648 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f42.google.com with SMTP id s14so980731qeb.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=dp3IS/ChiSnHslRGwtPFxsmYGsChgmmUNAVKIaXroyc=; b=mAFuqWfoOrDigkEHKzN8VKo2t2Pjq2Bu4kIRyB0WcRHvWEXYqDOJfXWPj0BruU8+Ta ThZlFuRkEsY/p/X21U1u7kUq9jpXlxghGMQQ9S2bRMFLCMnJ50a/DNECubcegfl1v7jy R5116MVmF+piVh3UIx3JpiCfwgj3R9/ALce9xwGe0s2N8h9r/KTJue2BhsNKc8WJZqTp lcbWnLEgO3FBlf6Aq71HxmzNcR8GmTGz7dF1edWlc3h7+3YFbYAo9NgOyNUuJL/ZgQQ3 pFgCUaLy46e7nmLrpV9Wp9vGm85Y2hyCjcmO3N4pBMTRBop2UdG8HBUZEnP6kE7wyloL qwRA==
X-Received: by 10.224.4.74 with SMTP id 10mr21039360qaq.38.1370293645393; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.26.103 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51ACF998.5030202@jitsi.org>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <C3639EB3-0F44-4893-88DA-BB9F9C96A116@iii.ca> <51A8EB7F.6000506@jitsi.org> <72B58042-78E3-4759-B3CD-204B82A38447@iii.ca> <51ACF998.5030202@jitsi.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:07:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=pJtdL2A6V7bprZ_F=V39Fadb+kRw3yfO+6+MFVZ9x2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlBqA2gc7SefzMVusMAcUb9dqGahvZS5BR6x1W+kBb7SGvkVsNnqJ/mSz9HyqvDEUFj3IxC
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal
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 21:12:57 -0000

2013/6/3 Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>rg>:
>>> We create an offer that would describe the media types and the bundle. We
>>> use that offer to also describe capabilities in terms of maximum
>>> resolutions, supported header extensions, potentially max-ssrc-s, etc.
>>>
>>> It is up to the application how to handle the rest. If it needs to
>>> transmit additional signalling: let it. If it wants to encode that in SDP,
>>> great. If it wants to attach it in JSON next to the browser generated SDP,
>>> that also works.
>>
>>
>> Great - I have super news for you. The WG agree to do that a year or more
>> ago.
>
>
> So I've heard indeed.
>
> Unfortunately however, it seems that we might have forgotten this decision.
> We are now trying hard to come up with a signalling mechanism that will do
> everything with Offer/Answer.


I think there is a misunderstanding here. I understand from Emil's
mail that media re-negotation or streams addition after the first SDP
O/A is not carried as a new full SDP O/A. Am I right?

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>