Re: [rtcweb] Use of offer / answer semantics

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 06 September 2011 15:47 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 884E421F8BBA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 W5NIp22NWQTJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220DC21F8BB3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so4940780fxe.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.55.219 with SMTP id v27mr3341240fag.2.1315324160900; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ([78.90.181.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o18sm130501fal.20.2011.09.06.08.49.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6640FC.8080108@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:49:16 +0300
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; bg; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
References: <DB0C463A-FF5F-4C15-B2B4-E81B7DF92351@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB0C463A-FF5F-4C15-B2B4-E81B7DF92351@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use of offer / answer semantics
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, 06 Sep 2011 15:47:38 -0000

Hey Cullen,

На 06.09.11 17:46, Cullen Jennings написа:
> 
> In my roll as an individual contributor, I want to propose some text
> that I think we can get rough consensus on around that helps specify
> which parts of the signaling issues we agree on and which we don't.
> 
> At the last meeting, my read of the the room was there was a fair
> amount of agreement in the room that offer / answer semantics  with
> SDP are what we want to use. I don't think there was was broad
> agreement on if one should use SIP or not, or for that matter jingle.
> If we can nail down this decisions as the direction the WG is going,
> it will really help make progress. What I would like to do is propose
> some following principles in the text below. If we have agreement on
> these, then they would go into the overview document and help guide
> the design of other documents. I want to highlight that none of the
> principles below imply that we would need to use SIP in the browsers
> - the principals would all work fine if we there was signaling
> gateway in the web server that converged SIP to whatever proprietary
> HTML / JS  / HTTP that the applications wanted to use between the
> browser and the web server.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The media negotiations will be done using the same SDP
> offer/answer semantics that are used in SIP.

Does this cover media format negotiation only or does it also cover
transport negotiation? I believe you once mentioned you were a fan of
"sending ICE candidates as they become available" and for that to happen
we'd probably need something more XMPP-like than SIP/SDP-like.

> 2) It will be possible to gateway between legacy SIP devices that
> support ICE and appropriate RTP / SDP mechanisms and codecs without
> using a media gateway. A signaling gateway to convert between the
> signaling on the web side to the SIP signaling may be needed.

+1

> 3) When a new codec is specified, and the SPD for the new codec is
> specified in the MMUSIC WG, no other standardization would should be
> required for it to be possible to use that in the web browsers.

I was about to suggest we should also mention the result from the
PAYLOAD WG here (rather than MMUSIC only) but I believe that's actually
what Colin meant.

Cheers,
Emil

> Adding a new codecs which might have new SDP parameters should not
> change the APIs between the browser and javascript application. As
> soon as the browsers support the new codec, old applications written
> before the codecs was specified should automatically be able to use
> the new codec where appropriate with no changes to the JS
> applications.
> 
> 
> People  has looked at alternatives to all these in a fair amount of
> detail. For example, we have considered alternatives to the SDP offer
> / answer such as the advertisement proposal draft
> (draft-peterson-sipcore-advprop-01) and discussed that several times
> in the WG. The primary issues identified with this was concerns over
> mapping this to legacy SDP. Similarly people have considered a
> replacement for SDP in the SDPng work which was eventually abandoned
> due to the difficulty of having a incentive for implementations to
> migrate from SDP to SDPng.
> 
> We have also considered just sending audio and video directly over
> something like DTLS and not suing RTP. The WG has clearly rejected
> this due to a variety of reasons - the desire not to to have the
> operating expense of media gateway and reduction in quality of
> experience is obviously a high priority goal for the designs of the
> RTP multiplexing draft.
> 
> The JS API is being developed by W3C but when proposing APIs that
> should violate the third principal, such as the the API in section 4
> of draft-jennings-rtcweb-api-00, it is clear that many people that
> are more from the browser and web application world do not want such
> an API.
> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 

-- 
http://jitsi.org