Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 19 July 2011 16:47 UTC
Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 E347C21F84CD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1pdt5bw5DyC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C236121F84DA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so383358fxe.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.161.80 with SMTP id q16mr375004fax.36.1311094049751; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porcinet.local ([2a01:e35:8a55:abc0:21e:c2ff:fe1b:2fe]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm70297fax.27.2011.07.19.09.47.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E25B51F.7050000@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:47:27 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; bg; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:47:35 -0000
На 19.07.11 16:28, Magnus Westerlund написа: <snip> > a) MUST be sent as Individual flows for each component. +1 > b) MUST be multiplexed into a single transport flow. > > c) SHOULD be multiplexed into a single transport flow, but the RTCWEB > peer MUST be able to send them as individual flows. > > I would love if people can indicate their choice or preferences. > > I personally prefer A as it it is simplest in all aspect except the NAT > traversal. It definitely simplifies it on paper - it would be far easier to draw an ICE negotiation diagram that only deals with a single stream component. I am not sure however to what extent this would actually simplify implementations. They would still need to handle multiple candidates and pacing and such ... and of course they'd also need to implement a de-multiplexing layer. <snip> > - People are used to the concept > - It minimizes the difference to legacy. Personally I consider this as the most important part. Cheers, Emil > > Thus it is the quickest road to define something with the least formal > push back and concern over maturity of any solution. > > The downside with B and C is that we do have to solve the multiplexing > and get an agreement that gets through all the hurdles. > > Of these two opens I do prefer C. Although it results in the extra > complexities of having both alternatives, it will give us both a > fallback, flow based QoS and better legacy support. > > Now it is your time to make your opinion heard! > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > -- Emil Ivov, Ph.D. 67000 Strasbourg, Project Lead France Jitsi emcho@jitsi.org PHONE: +33.1.77.62.43.30 http://jitsi.org FAX: +33.1.77.62.47.31
- [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] Support for websockets Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Salvatore Loreto