Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 03 June 2013 20:47 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 97AAB11E80DC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, 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 3elY4ahzpwIC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D54521F8808 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.11]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jna71l0060EZKEL5EwgJxv; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:40:18 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jwgJ1l0113ZTu2S3MwgJ06; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:40:18 +0000
Message-ID: <51ACFF31.9090607@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:40:17 -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> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C37D144@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <51A9A7E2.7000907@jitsi.org> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C380AA2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C380AA2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1370292018; bh=I6jlqFtUFDj/ci/bMDMK6nBDDxGUMNQV/in0WnrlzuA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=DI6JBRb6dw4hCxsiieOwcJbe2AzCtJEbcBg31iG8lLSINsXOOV3J5A2fbi1H0OK2I PZH0kuv/XjWGBGCjrac7C6WSJogtLW8shd7RvUIHleuhjDVOn3381HyAOpYlB+fGB8 A5L26gJxkYL4O0xwR8Y+3n0VmxQtqtqFAAv+yRiuQ8Tf7JUJVn/mPhqhDDAWj7sWAy jJ9Nh6I9kXMY09AlQYwHe95HXoDKfp96NjsqhNBnkdwf5chQRKJBCaS3h65QQ8KFP6 ZdNsShdM0hzXrRYUCCtcqXOFPs/eYjcUn2b4I2C0IQglWFVZvb24uPOUUa7MPfczPW l9qWuO20AoyIw==
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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:47:57 -0000
+1 The more we dig into this the more it looks like Plan B. Thanks, Paul On 6/1/13 7:05 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Hi, > >>> The draft says: >>> >>> "For the sake of interoperability this specification strongly advises >>> against the use of multiple m= lines for a single media type." >> >> This should probably be clarified. The above referred mostly to a >> browser's expectations and default offers. Multiple m= lines can confuse >> a number of existing legacy endpoints which is why they should be >> avoided when initiating a session that could reach a similar device (and >> by default this should be assumed for any session). >> >> If applications *know* that they need to have multiple m= lines of a >> given type they can request this the same way they could do it with Plan B: >> >> If the application wishes, it can request that a given >> media source be placed onto a separate m= line, by setting a new >> .content property on the desired MediaStreamTrack; the values for the >> .content property are those defined for the a=content attribute in >> [RFC4796]. >> >> I'll make sure this is part of the next version. >> >> Does this make sense? > > I have nothing against a general recommendation to, for a given media type, have as few m- lines as possible. > > But, I do think the draft need to point out that it is not always possible, e.g. because: > > 1) m- lines have different characteristics (normally indicated using SDP attributes) that does not "fit" all content for the given media type; > 2) different protocols are used for different m- lines, even if the media type is the same; or > 3) the remote endpoint only supports a single (or, another given number) of sources per m- line. > > Etc. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > >> My understanding is that the usage of multiple m= lines for a single media type would not affect the mechanism as such, but I just want to verify that :) >> >> Also, there ARE "legacy" implementations that use multiple m= lines for a single media type (e.g. video enabled devices using two video m= lines: one for camera content, and one for slides). >> >> So, while I definitely think that legacy interoperability shall be taken into consideration, I would not like to make such strong statements. In my opinion (the draft also talks about it), the usage of multiple simultaneous SSRCs per m- line is a much bigger issue when it comes to legacy interoperability. >> >> Also, in CLUE we have been working on signaling scenarios with multiple m= lines per media type. > > >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Emil Ivov >> Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 22:00 >> To: rtcweb@ietf.org >> Subject: [rtcweb] No Plan >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> https://jitsi.org >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> . >> > > -- > https://jitsi.org > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Martin Thomson
- [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - PT based MUX Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mark Rejhon
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Barry Dingle
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Plan) Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Pl… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- [rtcweb] Plan xyz discussions; MMUSIC <> RTCweb R… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Peter Thatcher