Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05 - common attributes

Justin Uberti <> Mon, 04 November 2013 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EE221F9B07 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:43:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.091
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.780, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17xJ-fIRngcO for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9287811E810A for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p6so1147083vbe.32 for <>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:43:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=IVlG2VRvWfXzq0WW+tbFmLSDDpUFmMO8hmKKVm9Ek+8=; b=S4iM2MshhCLiQeT8aeA19+YBu75cbe1wimq3t1Ygl5Sb5CvOMkinU38OXS69fjW1/F RWYkMtLn8zeZNsiv/vJZSoV1Et9C3H0HYcgxWwPgT9btmxMGOokHt8+dSgGhPUTB44nT K0xrHyae+k7WZHQP5ZjcBKvuwkRtYA57YSZMfKc0mrNTDUUN00JGgNxW8ePj+/rXrwIy SfQCgmJS0R3WudwxphJfR9U15Hp9KlQI2lcPx/bNrjTooW9eCLdBSMBJm8OC8nvmLWoa J+/2oBM2/9db3BTgNTL1Uh0ueVeB5nRJ7SJWjjwfkly4NBsNUReTSyX9I6hzhLFVMkhu mvRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=IVlG2VRvWfXzq0WW+tbFmLSDDpUFmMO8hmKKVm9Ek+8=; b=H/dvLiq1lfy9ndodtRHsWL+QG1LlLprSwk8/rJDqW5gOp309hRchi9RhnaoqLmWi0c su0alD2A+P75kc1wZHkZ78KuGUvUsTv42q/YtO3QyEf9LxEc/jdfslGK0Yoit+wRUvjq d2Bdg95z7HO5fjxudVcSlBoQQF8t9QsNrkwTBTWMus84q2Vin1T7YwrAy8KWPtRQgCNl OsQCzJU3Rp3iZduM86FT741wPqNncuTeEhbm2twBCtF/AuELDsYyOaF7JmnHdq1zpGSA G/FxC3FjiTQ8BHWg69qMwESWc8b50b9JtTAjVHfaWLm2FJzNOcYpRmU3/cDecVw2yGsb IWtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkooOzn2ds5OnUqqbJcGEUS/rRKjYK+Lv9Ybqf1BAl6xmAc/OG89Fc/5csdRVbssmwb/EXOpRgTxSN07frCsT297xl+ukIza6MhvgBAAfHfY9D9e4XeQioXwrQnO2XoxUIhQHeEeZRI+1BooN0BPs6gSlduAmXBX0y8P4/Hc732hA4T32sViJ9f2aY1iMxpi1torucz
X-Received: by with SMTP id ea10mr470344vdb.31.1383547425332; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:43:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:43:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:43:25 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f38f8d1355304ea543c23
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05 - common attributes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:43:59 -0000

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Paul Kyzivat <> wrote:

> Section 5.2.1 says:
>    Each m= section, provided it is not being bundled into another m=
>    section, MUST generate a unique set of ICE credentials and gather its
>    own unique set of ICE candidates.  Otherwise, it MUST use the same
>    ICE credentials and candidates that were used in the m= section that
>    it is being bundled into.
> But the use of common ICE candidates for bundled m-lines doesn't work
> until it is known that bundling will be used. Seems like a few more words
> about that are called for.

Sure. When I say "bundled" here, I mean that the actual bundling has
occurred, i.e. the streams will be sent over the same transport (in which
case they have to use the same ICE info).

> Further on:
>    Attributes that are common between all m= sections MAY be moved to
>    session-level, if desired.
> I presume this is only trying to point out a common feature of SDP. But it
> overstates the real situation. This may only be done for media level
> attributes (not source level), and only those that are defined to also be
> valid at session level as a default for media level.
> It might be better to just not say this. Or refer to 4566 for details.

Since this section mentions which specific attributes must be added to each
m= section, this is just pointing out that it is also OK if these are added
at session level. But I see that not all attributes are defined as being
valid at session level, regardless of whether the values are common.

I think it is worth mentioning what JSEP endpoints should do here. Assuming
we want to permit this behavior, it sounds like we should simply mention
that this can be done only for media-level attributes that are also defined
to be valid at session-level.

>         Thanks,
>         Paul
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list