Re: [rtcweb] A problem with both A and B

On 5/20/13 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think it's a BUNDLE issue whether adding/removing of streams require an O/A exchange or not. It's an SDP, and SDP O/A, issue.
>
> BUNDLE is about sharing a 5-tuple.

I don't agree.

RTP is already able to support multiple RTP streams sharing an RTP 
session (and 5-tuple).

What BUNDLE is about is describing that in SDP.
And that includes how SDP O/A works.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Thomson
> Sent: 17. toukokuuta 2013 23:50
> To: Bernard Aboba
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A problem with both A and B
>
>> "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:
>>     DES F11  It must be possible to add and remove one way video flows
>>        within the bundle without requiring an additional offer/answer
>>        cycle.
>
> I'm not sure why this speaks specifically about video...
>
> On 17 May 2013 13:21, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is important. In fact, I would argue it is critical for congestion control (e.g. removal of simulcast or layered streams by the sender should not require an O/A exchange).
>
> This is different I think.  Responding to congestion only requires that it be possible to stop sending a given stream.  (Or maybe crank down resolution or frame rate.)
>
> This item talks about addition.  That's an entirely different proposition.  As long as we assume constraints (you don't need to re-ICE a new transport for the stream, you don't use new packet types and codec profiles), this could be possible.  But to get WebRTC to support this requires API changes.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>