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