Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 30 May 2013 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 06A3D21F8E41 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 xUab+EgZ4CEL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5AA21F9128 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iAkM1l0041ei1Bg58F7nYC; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:07:47 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iF7n1l00R3ZTu2S3kF7nlb; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:07:47 +0000
Message-ID: <51A76B42.2000209@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:07:46 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A70CBC.5010108@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <51A70CBC.5010108@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1369926467; bh=VCbJoyLTqDfnB6qHLF8uQZ0cn2+e8n7dZ1GOQPM3ooo=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=S1Xl8pT3ZF9gDmBw3kZJQcbX0KVHHuo/e0blrsxlzVTlkMoEN689LZzjg25rX9aAK y/RyWRoWUJLuIMep9Y6wdbX3yozfVGzXKGeI4D50q5Vaq0gdCjtokdxQ73DC9NA/IZ fjjcELw+HYpJF/9n4rF/+jOYqD0IaSQTAUaTGRYHT8WKpXSQSAsCqCg3MvXRjOZEmF sqMjzhPc1EuH4IWpzB0wxJmw8EE54y8NrKmczeg69jYzwuMgahyh6BC+1gN4DBOkGS vtzWiIqociq/ARBK5tI0sf/CNJEejR9XHXkRD60JsFhyM7LO1Ybg/+9yiDquO0zPJy SZ/EAR8PH7RYw==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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, 30 May 2013 15:08:08 -0000

On 5/30/13 4:24 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> Hi Emil,
>
> a couple of comments:
>
> "1.  Expose the SSRCs of all local MediaStreamTrack-s that the
>         application may want to attach to a PeerConnection."
>
> I don't think that would be possible, or desirable. SSRC _only_ come
> into play when a MediaStreamTrack is to be transported over the network
> - it is useless in local cases. And, the same local MediaStreamTrack
> could be sent to several peers (using different PeerConnections) and
> could have different SSRC's (and even different number of SSRC's) for
> the different peers.
>
> I think SSRCs would only be available for MediaStreamTracks that are
> attached to a PeerConnection.

If that is true, then I think it calls for exposing to the API an object 
that binds MediaStreamTrack to the PeerConnection, so that there is a 
place to hang the SSRC attribute.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> One thing I like about Plan A and B is that the naive application
> developer does not have to deal with things below MediaStream and
> MediaStreamTrack level. The application would simply add a MediaStream
> (containing MediaStreamTracks) to the PeerConnection, do the
> createOffer/setLocal and exchange signaling blobs that it need not look
> into, and the MediaStream with MediaStreamTrack's would be reflected at
> the remote end. The application would not have to deal with PT's, SSRC's
> etc.
>
> I think that the "No Plan" proposal could be made similar if the info
> about how MediaStreamTrack's relate to SSRC's (including those for FEC
> and RTX) is exchanged using some blobs that the (naive) app can just
> exchange and need not look into.
>
> If done that way, "No Plan" seems to me to be quite similar to Plan B,
> with the difference being that the info about how SSRC's relate to
> MediaStreamTrack's is exchanged not in the core SDP but in separate
> messages. This could be seen as an improvement I think.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> On 2013-05-29 20:59, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many
>> others that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate
>> a negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a
>> little bit less.
>>
>> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
>>
>> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the
>> intricacies of multi-source scenarios to application-specific
>> signalling, with potentially a little help from RTP.
>>
>> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the
>> interoperability requirements that concerned them can still be met with
>> "no plan". Of course they would have to be addressed by
>> application-specific signalling and/or signalling gateways.
>>
>> Comments are welcome!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Emil
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>