IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override?

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 21 March 2013 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 6385521F8C99 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.826
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 l4mMElV91kcU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com (mail-qe0-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB32021F8C66 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id nd7so2090021qeb.24 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=BKHOvhOpWFaqd2EtushJZXtWXQIIOT+WCRUVuq4x5Fg=; b=C9kvn6QW1ZI6dekiHC04w068W1agFT8bMYddGdlq/v6lzKBE+jDPZyjF4nnZc76GPz Oj6S2oO2mGdb445QynFlmMk/xh1kjD5lakI+N1EAmZUTpe/wlrLwTt/0y/8yFY6Kp1Nh fiUP34jL4YxsbV02XjcQh3W6WweqDPL/uYz+NUFExRI8o7FEr2bmLu0Ny0Znpnhx8jMC VycMS10m7J5bE+DeVBrPlwKV6oBfJlTFQhKa3F+LAFR5STy+Gaoeooz1+NXsXsV0YLT6 OCf+MDwa4ihUpu03d5aIqumKqDMb0a2oM5sNPdYaVaNRiQ9NDyW1tgO355X2lZC05KZT 9cfA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=BKHOvhOpWFaqd2EtushJZXtWXQIIOT+WCRUVuq4x5Fg=; b=L7z1fmT0xr999ut1ddyIgdngPFUtVLJut2Qt4CrJK5eYES+xxf3+O5d5Z0hJ2RDWQu BXer13XU8sYlWzDjHjYudt0mPadX7bdT/X2W2R0aTXfuz+g73T2T8uaLdBG+Bcrae5MC srYWNdfvwYa94oGdwM7ePY3cRde3zFh5MJARmPbSVgXGrsBk6IjgD19742IyU+AmqhSt QRHFVj7x5pA/tuidpTr8umIRlO1KwHydt9Xja9hFgUqTtG2jrCmgKNZxjhfAdTHYpqDX VjerLMYFFCfhO6N9qPuhbj4nO6XHHIVyHuzLm6K+v/Zc8HNGv7n3b4Ulxyp117NieA5a 69zw==
X-Received: by 10.229.137.75 with SMTP id v11mr652958qct.26.1363898654263; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.138.3 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F695235@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6942C3@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <514829CE.4010004@alvestrand.no> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F694591@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <51489A43.3030109@jitsi.org> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F69476F@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <201303191936.r2JJakU4763611@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6951B8@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-2eH9oy8=OWVyoUki5ALWSwaB8x_dwpYUDJ-rY_VJ--kw@mail.gmail.com> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F695235@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:43:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2hJCbPHLVwF=3+X2LHjyBf2PepqWd01i8qRF8g2FDv5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00235452ecd0cc4dbb04d87566aa"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/JiZEn6hItD+KfiL5P7isv2P7ROCcS+bpq+6wbqM4WGOYkbi06kzWlfVm8FW91I4pC2P50IOJSn1PNeyZhs66Lpbq8LMEqJdvudzYiG81SfwFa3q+WGhZ94rzN+XiLWP+LGF/HCRrejFmnS7W6kepsdtwsTaSIiIdwMU029rpb5ihpit9XjScWx7xdZiFGxXmWbyF
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Is bundle just a port override?
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, 21 Mar 2013 20:44:22 -0000

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com>wrote:

>  Hi Justin,****
>
> ** **
>
> I understand the potential problems with legacy endpoints as described in
> A.2 of Christer’s draft, not just intermediaries (A.4) which I thought Dale
> was specifically commenting about. The constraints of legacy peers and
> intermediaries is obviously important to the overall solution, but
> orthogonal to how we signal the desired port in a new way (as a single
> attribute or using the grouping framework).****
>
> ** **
>
> BTW, has anyone actually observed failures? I ask because I could not get
> products to fail (when simply offering the same ports) in my (limited)
> interop lab. SIPit 30 was on my campus last month, I wish I would have
> tested it there for more data points. I can try at SuperOp next month. Just
> checking if someone hit a real problem before starting this bundle party.*
> ***
>
> **
>

Yes, we have observed failures directly, and Christer has identified
several cases that can cause latent malfunctions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email