Re: [rtcweb] SDP_PRANSWER followed by SDP_OFFER scenario in JSEP

Cullen Jennings <> Thu, 10 May 2012 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B63311E80BE for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ov4WgoYp6OWs for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4B911E80BA for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1693422E256; Thu, 10 May 2012 15:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:06:32 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C44001337@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericss> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Justin Uberti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Randell Jesup <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP_PRANSWER followed by SDP_OFFER scenario in JSEP
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: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:06:35 -0000

Uh, I don't think we are ready to design anything yet - I am still 100% confused on what the use case we are trying to solve is. Is it forking on at the browser, in intermediate node, in SIP, parallel, sequential or what? I want to see the end user use cases we need to deal with. The example Randell gave seems reasonable but seem like it would best be handled with just multiple independent PeerConnection. The combination of requiring ICE and SIP parallel forking is very complicated - particularly without Reliable provisions responses and all the complexity that ensues.

So before we go down this path, lets get clearer on what we are trying to accomplish.


On May 8, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:

> The conclusion on this thread seems to be that the right way to address this problem is via PeerConnection cloning, and that no changes are needed to the JSEP state machine. I'll work with Richard to figure out how we should extend JSEP to support cloning.
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
> Hi,
> >>>>You could also choose not to alert the remote user until the ICE procedures have finished - more or less using ICE with preconditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, that is going to trigger actions in STUN/TURN servers, even if the called party won't accept the call, but at least from a user
> >>>> experience perspective that is still better than lifting the hook, and having to wait for whatever-time-it-takes-for-ICE-to-finish seconds before one can start to talk.
> >>>
> >>> This also has a downside of disclosing user's IP to the caller without the user confirmation. For a lot of applications this can be serious security flaw.
> >>
> >> The client can still log when ICE procedures occur.
> >>
> >> Because, even if I wait until your phone starts to ring, most likely I would still get your IP address without user confirmation (speaking in SIP terms, phones normally don't ask for user permission before they send 18x with SDP), eventhough you would easier be made aware of that it happens.
> >
> > Another alternative is of course to do ICE with an SBC, and/or having an SBC doing ICE on behalf of you :)
> >
> >
> > This is true for SIP but was as far as I know was specifically designed around in WebRTC. WebRTC signaling server acts as B2BUA so any type of ringing notification goes through the web server and does not need to carry any type of client address information. The client address information is only provided
> > when SDP answer is sent or ICE negotiation is started.
> Assuming you are only going to make user confirmation (read: accept calls) in cases where you absolutely sure that the caller isn't someone trying to get your IP address.
> But, never the less, having a solution where I first have to give user confirmation, and then wait until I can start to talk, is probably something most people want to avoid. Depending upon, of course, how long the waiting time is.
> Regards,
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list