Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA511A0761 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQZMh4lDYlFG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04691A044B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f4c8e0000012f5-b6-53207df39ff1
Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4A.68.04853.3FD70235; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:32:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:32:02 +0100
Message-ID: <53207DF3.9000706@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:32:03 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWGQ7GtKd33iF-RNbkeAyqKYshaPDDB=sAh5o-izKichQ@mail.gmail.com> <C702F0CB-0BBF-4A55-97A7-EC44FFAAC62B@cisco.com> <CABkgnnUaHHZqdsA5VQY9HgO-iJESOKfbhkgBqNdMYYGGMsHNuA@mail.gmail.com> <DFF2335C-F97E-43FA-9DB4-1E9B8E74F253@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DFF2335C-F97E-43FA-9DB4-1E9B8E74F253@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7nWoVgg9/rDS0uXnvIZHHtzD9G i7X/2tkdmD2m/N7I6rFz1l12jyVLfjIFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZezsO85W0MtXMeHnd9YG xh3cXYwcHBICJhKvLpt0MXICmWISF+6tZwOxhQROMEo8nVrXxcgFZC9nlNi45RpYgldAW2Lp +keMIDaLgKrEmvbf7CA2m4CFxM0fjWA1ogLBEjsP/GaEqBeUODnzCQuILSLgKTHl4WmwOLOA usSdxefAeoUFrCSeHD7AArHsO6PEuV0fwYo4BWwlrmzfxQRxqLhET2MQRK+exJSrLVBz5CWa t85mhjhaW6KhqYN1AqPQLCSrZyFpmYWkZQEj8ypGyeLU4uLcdCMDvdz03BK91KLM5OLi/Dy9 4tRNjMAAP7jlt9EOxpN77A8xSnOwKInzXmetCRISSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXA uNX7RKYPl7/hbdHDf0+mGHLVLOd5pvxK2Ngmh/dw4dK/O/co3v1sqzjhu9uXqfa/Gz5MXDer TXnXDLUFKR/E047OzN788zmn3f/1izbvnHNOquaf53TLkuMcur8aXQ+9Xcu8e38ER6yPwZ+T Oyq9Jb9sleKNSFn1646Pf5H0okUrWdRv68mZLFFiKc5INNRiLipOBABrg3QQPgIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/qtoNhr2BF3nWO3xLrjNt5tP1-b8
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Mar 2014 15:32:16 -0000

On 2014-03-12 01:51, Dan Wing wrote:
> 
> On Mar 8, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 7 March 2014 20:14, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> About half a year ago, AVTCORE published an updated recommendation for CNAME as RFC7022.  Is its guidance insufficient?
>>
>> Necessary, but not sufficient.  Unfortunately, the definition of a
>> "session", while sufficient for the description in 7022, is not quite
>> precise enough for this use case.  The implication there is that it
>> means "RTP session", which is both not at the right level of
>> granularity, and not directly actionable.
> 
> Perhaps AVTCORE can take on an update to use WebRTC terminology.

I disagree!

WebRTC is a particular usage of RTP/RTCP. The fact that RFC 7022's
terminology is not sufficiently narrow to describe the particulars of
WebRTC's usage is in my opinion not a bug. It is a feature. If the
AVTCORE document would be using the narrowed down case of WebRTC the
recommendations would no longer be applicable in a number of other
usages of RTP.

Deciding to apply RTP in a particular way to solve ones real-time
transport problems, also means that one have may have to be more
specific within that usage about things, this is such an example.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund
(As Individual)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------