IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Basic scenario 'impossible?' to achieve with the actual API

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 E69E011E80F7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.826
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.826 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]
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 Gd9U43LZkuy9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4DA11E80E0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j13so5257182wgh.24 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Ihqb1rKyyKdgcpYzj9eGQ2TBf5sz2linqe4Vg0v2IKc=; b=RNEk14zEc6QFtujo2Ln6Wh7ExFEzySnFmz3a5Et3Eie09WrAjbptWUfsJPa7ltZd1M fm78imTZ99wn5TNcCmUbjRuJiU62txkHur1KRWq4Ej+j0a/SzHbgvDytHotXqGjlFuG0 twqaF82k3Qm1FFljLnALXhK45HDcIFf13VCZrN9cthSVI3EvpBUtF4pAD9IvHeJdQLpl fDTx7wFJCtvXNpjAozkI0f0/GEbH/NgBI27jzfTNPdZlzh+ocDGt470q62rIphanZFIL zXPmOjKmSPKLp1DoZOL5WROKXTuHPXqFyy2tE3lN5/2FDNpylY+J6515U9s3uhMpDYAI qI8A==
X-Received: by 10.194.58.11 with SMTP id m11mr25003655wjq.45.1372798825001; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x235.google.com (mail-wg0-x235.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ev19sm25257821wid.2.2013.07.02.14.00.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y10so5193202wgg.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.173.71 with SMTP id bi7mr24680026wjc.2.1372798822273; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51D33409.9010906@telecomitalia.it>
References: <CABw3bnOp1jY6-ziR-PFG4-fRTT5zQ5ebQkmp5PhzeS1ew=h98g@mail.gmail.com> <51D2FC3C.8090609@telecomitalia.it> <CABkgnnUKmuadQ4u-SEkvnTTRpg=aaoMr=ouYV3hwYy6LJHh8zA@mail.gmail.com> <51D33409.9010906@telecomitalia.it>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:00:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuPiP5tr0JVxJPTuOdK0umEQSN2SqiCMTP3PYL6HG_Jaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0112cf9a265e8104e08da2c3"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkhxOitH/+oFGLyOlJ4DTB32syLqe8SSZu8HuDA8oHP9Xey+UmZDMMGR5o3WVvs84aRqVCU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Basic scenario 'impossible?' to achieve with the actual API
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, 02 Jul 2013 21:00:33 -0000

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Enrico Marocco <
enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it> wrote:

>
> FWIW I agree that, in more complex scenarios where streams are
> frequently added and/or removed, requiring a single O/A for each
> operation is going to be a problem. My preference -- a reasonable
> tradeoff at this point in time -- would be to limit SDP O/A to
> negotiation of ICE params, crypto material and payload types, and do
> stream manipulation in an app-specific way. The latter is no-plan, that
> incidentally carries my name on it. The former looks pretty much like
> plan A.
>
>
Since ICE needs to be set via API methods in order to support trickle ICE
the only thing that really needs to be in the initial O/A is crypto. Move
this into separate API methods and O/A can be gone.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email