Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)
"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 15:55 UTC
Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 F013A21F851C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H0k2gxDdDyi7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513BE21F84FE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 51D8D1EB854F; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:55:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.76]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:55:15 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)
Thread-Index: Ac2soVaPkW4RjXahQS+tE0/0W+snswAhbkjgAAZaPeA=
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:55:14 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF01308C08@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484160ED478@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B018CD8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B018CD8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)
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, 18 Oct 2012 15:55:19 -0000
Also agree in general we need more clarity on SDP usage and it would be good if the default use of JSEP was to maintain compatibility with 3264 offer/answer but I assume it is really the application that has to ensure that. I am assuming that jsep-02 will start to clarify some of this and align with the W3C spec which for example does require createOffer and createAnswer to be used. Also wondering if jsep-02 will clarify the current thinking on how rehydration is going to work I am thinking that in this case it would be has to be down to the application to do what it can to stick to O/A rules but there will be limitation. I look forward to reviewing jsep-02 in detail when it is available. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Christer Holmberg > Sent: 18 October 2012 12:56 > To: Matthew Kaufman; Cullen Jennings (fluffy) > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for > Atlanta meeting) > > Hi, > > I agree with Matthew. > > In my opinion, the default should be that JSEP O/A is aligned with RFC > 3264. > > Then, IF some relaxation is needed, we should look at it case by case. > At the moment, one has to try to figure out him/herself what the > relaxations are. > > And, as the authors don't seem to think there are any relaxations in > the first place, I REALLY think we need to clarify this :) > > And, it's not only about PRANSWER - even without that there are > relaxations (as Matthew's e-mail describes). > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net] > Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2012 23:25 > To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Christer Holmberg > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org > Subject: Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta > meeting) > > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy) > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:17 AM > > > I have not seen any reason to relax 3264 yet but if something comes > up, agree we should carefully look at the cases. I think we can just do > straight up > 3264. Arguments that SIP early media in a 180 is not > compliant with 3264 are just wrong. > > We've *already* "relaxed" 3264's requirements in JSEP (comments apply > to draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-01) > > Straight from 3264: "At any time, either agent MAY generate a new offer > that updates the session. However, it MUST NOT generate a new offer if > it has received an offer which it has not yet answered or rejected. > Furthermore, it MUST NOT generate a new offer if it has generated a > prior offer for which it has not yet received an answer or a rejection. > If an agent receives an offer after having sent one, but before > receiving an answer to it, this is considered a "glare" condition." > > The JSEP API enforces no such rules. If you want to change the API to > bring it into compliance with *just this section* of 3264, it would > need all sorts of changes... > > - 5.1.1 createOffer ... "Calling this method does not change state; its > use is not required". Ok, so how then is JSEP to enforce the two "MUST > NOT generate a new offer" is the quote from 3264 above? I would think > that createOffer must return an error whenever the "MUST NOT" cases > apply. (Never mind that if the "use is not required" then somehow I'm > to guess what SDP is legal for this browser to pass in to > setLocalDescription as an offer?) > > - 5.1.4 setLocalDescription... has no language indicating that it is > prohibited to call "setLocalDescription" with an offer and then call it > again with a different offer without having supplied an answer. There > also appears to be no way to pass a "reject" in. (These two issues > appear in the W3C API state description too, so appears to really be > what we mean when we say that we're going to "use JSEP") > > - 5.1.2 createAnswer... "Calling this method does not change state; its > use is not required". So then how can setLocalDescription know when it > is forbidden to accept an "offer" passed to it (as createOffer is not > required) when setRemoteDescription has been passed an "offer" but > "createAnswer" has not yet been called? > > And so on. > > This isn't the only section of 3264 that's gone out the window with > JSEP, but saying "I have not seen any reason to relax 3264 yet" doesn't > make any sense... that ship sailed when JSEP was proposed. > > Matthew Kaufman > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda request… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Hutton, Andrew
- [rtcweb] Handling a partially-useful offer (Re: R… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Handling a partially-useful offer (R… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda req… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)