IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Data Channel Negotiation and reopening of decisions

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2013 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 95DC721F8644 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:14:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 5WivUdppz1HU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8899821E8098 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x43so1471250wey.24 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:14:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tIq6EWH9p0rcjIMmMlUzM1O5DNW1B/T2tGptBBwRezk=; b=drYJqws+u0xL5bCiel1BWWAunitvLnuObk6FWeu3+H91B4TneNHdt/OcaC9GPVX1ka SzuTLNNA9evjjdpPvnX912PLnW9aXCXApZ2zbHnRLuJ6dk/oWfvZDlZW7d+/5upCqEge wwapIcO/nJKj2gRIGHkNUtaduOuJ9lhy67U7qS0t7Zu2+DVsnVE3ryrJFaqD3sL2HNmZ hJVko3zdYFlGmoGPgh+s2wQ21u52u3AKnSPYi7fOfiX/rpkkTXxuw6oXJlD0t8ZTEMUw LaVDBfVEqoDseGycZZKjjuMczqRBkRqqwJEiWPY1EY5M5zTX9bY9IBE7luMdgdsXiCJh isDQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.76.84 with SMTP id i20mr13266452wiw.9.1360796287327; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.5.135 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F55AA828-4DEA-4B19-849B-3D003B210D62@iii.ca>
References: <CABkgnnWUpMSBLioSD2+p82vGszX9R0Q4WFfME5j-DuK+B7KVJw@mail.gmail.com> <5113CD16.6090806@jesup.org> <CABkgnnW792o76t9dKhidOMJpa21VcbPQZFU1HYnY_yjTPCWhYw@mail.gmail.com> <51166A3C.4000604@jesup.org> <CABkgnnV2m=m+qtM1YR4CPse=gyekvWThon_Nxbf8YMVaNuvq6Q@mail.gmail.com> <511B6C9A.4090904@jesup.org> <CABkgnnUiCKuv_=mgLFf4sRnOb1bY190N7E_+V8gfTbKEUTBnDw@mail.gmail.com> <F55AA828-4DEA-4B19-849B-3D003B210D62@iii.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWQYSwhAwgzAhbH1y0qqMhs3niDuT811CExQ4zrJidTJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Data Channel Negotiation and reopening of decisions
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:14:24 -0000

On 13 February 2013 14:24, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>
> To help this move quickly, could someone just draw out the various call flows and shows the pro's con's of them so that everyone is on the same page?

I'm not sure that this will help, or even cover all the nuances effectively...

in-band negotiation only:
http://www.websequencediagrams.com/?lz=dGl0bGUgZGF0YSBjaGFubmVsIHN0YXR1cyBxdW8KCkFsaWNlLT5Cb2I6IE9mZmVyCm5vdGUgcmlnaHQgb2YgABQFQm9iIHRoaW5rcyBhYm91dCBpdApCb2ItPgA5BTogQW5zdwAyCG92ZXIgAFEFADYGSUNFLCBEVExTLCBTQ1RQLCBldGMuLi4Aaw5wZW4gKCJsYWJlbCIsIHN0cmVhbSBYLACBKApldHRpbmdzKQCBBhhjYW4gcmVzcG9uZCBvbiBhbnkgYXZhaWxhYmxlAEkHAIElDU9wZW5SACsFc2UAaBJZKQCCCw1Mb2NrSXRJAIEZCgCBAAcAgVsQAIJYCGlzIHJlYWR5AIJQDWRhdGE&s=napkin

SDP negotiation only:
http://www.websequencediagrams.com/?lz=dGl0bGUgZGF0YSBjaGFubmVsIFNEUCBvbmx5Cgpub3RlIGxlZnQgb2YgQWxpY2U6AAEGIGNyZWF0ZXMALAgKABgFLT5Cb2I6IE9mZmVyADYGcmlnaAA4BQAUBUJvYiBnZXRzICdkYXRhAGgHJyBldmVudApCb2ItPgBcCG5zdwA7CG92ZXIAbgcAWQVJQ0UsIERUTFMsIFNDVFAsIGV0Yy4uLgB1DQCBSgUoc3RyZWFtIFgpAHgUABcGcyBhcmUgbGlua2VkIGJhc2VkIG9uIG5lZ290aWF0ZWQgbGFiZWwgaW4gc3RhdHVzIHF1bwCBHQ1tb3IAgjcHAGcIWSkAgXUYAII6D1RoaXMgbQCCHAV1c2UgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nAIMDDQCCBhQAgVQZUSk&s=napkin

Randell's 0RTT in-band option:
http://www.websequencediagrams.com/?lz=dGl0bGUgZGF0YSBjaGFubmVsIGZhc3QgaW4tYmFuZAoKQWxpY2UtPkJvYjogT2ZmZXIKQm9iLT4AEgU6IEFuc3dlcgpub3RlIG92ZXIgACoFIAApBUlDRSwgRFRMUywgU0NUUCwgZXRjLi4uAEQOcGVuICgibGFiZWwiLCBzdHJlYW0gWCwAgQQJc2V0dGluZ3MpAHwNZGF0YQBvBnJpZ2h0IG9mAG0Gb25kYXRhAIFBCCsgb25vcGVuAAQFbWVzc2FnZSBldmVudHMAgTgNT3BlblJlc3BvbnNlAHsSWQBtDkxvY2tJdEkAgSwKKQo&s=napkin

No negotiation option:
http://www.websequencediagrams.com/?lz=dGl0bGUgZGF0YSBjaGFubmVsIG5vIG5lZ290aWF0aW9uIG9wdGlvbgoKCkFsaWNlLT5Cb2I6IE9mZmVyCkJvYi0-ABIFOiBBbnN3ZXIKbm90ZSBvdmVyIAAqBSAAKQVJQ0UsIERUTFMsIFNDVFAsIGV0Yy4uLgBFDgCAfwUoc3RyZWFtIFgpAFANcmVwbHkAEQwAYgZsZWZ0IG9mAGUGOiBjcmVhdGVEYXRhQwCBRAcoWSkAShpZKQCBKAZyaWdoAEIFAIFVBTMgZXZlbnRzIG9uZGF0YQCCDQgrIG9ub3BlbgAEBW1lc3NhZ2UAgQgbAFQIAIF6EERyYXdiYWNrOiBCb2IgYW5kAIIgB20AgH8FaGF2ZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbGFiZWxzL3Byb3BlcnRpZXMAgkgWU29sdXRpb246AIMuCWUAg0QIcyBpZiB5b3UgY2FyZQCDBhZDb25zdHJhaW50OiAAgjAHcyB1c2UgdGhlIHNhbWUgAIMMB251bWJlciBvbiBib3RoIGVuZHMsIG5vAIEfCA&s=napkin

What we really have at the moment is both in-band + SDP.  I was
proposing that we go to SDP only, and maybe also allow the zero
negotiation option at the expense of consistency.  (Not just because
eventual consistency is web-scale.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email