Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and codecs from Friday session

Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <deadbeef@google.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 F16D312D5A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsm2bB7iBFyT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 582D112D5BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id t10so150780736ywa.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Ob+/cqUVn3Ij5r9QEXoQsf6xd3iVBO8EGrnx6amcjbA=; b=IoNijbzj2UmmuGoVQexFw8U3LiG6rOW20mkeCQu1YxCCzMoL+yKPbeE83eO3bwAak9 Fzvjs9b9dPqFgFFKNtYQKRwWbl8iKs/MZOrybLkW5iAmqGMzFlUGZRLwm92j9Bsuez6u f51o86jmPDGMcdyGnsWc4ZOqDue37xLncGzW97+1BQcIEqQtnjhLLmqCIDDTf9QQ3Hb3 5GZ+ADKXy04LCZSkcyujm2fEutyfN7Ux/7kCOD0GcbmLaUjPfBujS6Dlbn1pKkPlB0JD kkp7CrbHP8FRo0u3DP1QhLiXTuV2Vavu6zYAvlhsaZEUr/7inMBXLcrI1spEBuGRTK3q zPIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Ob+/cqUVn3Ij5r9QEXoQsf6xd3iVBO8EGrnx6amcjbA=; b=JR8tHDI2EGdiAELeQfX18pVd1R1HsObRFS8Xxhi3Hvk4NYTb/MzQphBlRCNxBaCBaO ZYXR/Febf6odETXUQFQZbABCJyjXurBQ7XlApCcN/ZVgKQF9iSZxAICxpS19NvVOFP6I tnVxzO09WMB3E7fgQyt4X1hYFhJ2+7+9f6ncxPwYC4U1nPNlSANs85WlJJspQxCD9SUq ZyGSRL0skFYe0POUAPplxEfDZPZ3wmlpLUJAqIEEWDPQOsRniM2EY2DN2jI2dfwfTZf7 iirkCP1WDQPsc9BWOk8rjMCsdIsUBY2CDsIFQsth6n5yNDZpZXNA39Jzyi6lsQ1qlHO+ 6ZXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJITmdSrVk3N66CqGieAeK813UHGmQleCSP+9y+T52JZYHCqS18XJn8Q9QQWtoctCadFqfy3xxLuPJ+eVtn5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.37.90.87 with SMTP id o84mr5917267ybb.9.1460153880479; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.98.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57082A21.7010005@alvestrand.no>
References: <5708256F.5080205@alum.mit.edu> <57082A21.7010005@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:18:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK35n0b=Qa5JxqrMUdSH92uw4U3=HyFuKSspZjgKN8vn_MuSqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114268885d90940530009131"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/yV7Y04jW5QOjCiJC2WaN6Y8xnFo>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and codecs from Friday session
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 22:18:09 -0000

In Section 6 of RFC 3264:

> The answerer MUST send using a media format in the offer that is also listed in the answer
>
> So, if X offers A and B, and Y answers B, how would Y be able to send A?
It's not in both the offer and the answer.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> This indicates that the answer's omission of a codec does not allow the
> offerer to deallocate resources that it has reserved for decoding that
> type of stream (such as hardware).
>
> Under this interpretation, if I reserve hardware for decoding VP8 and
> H.264, and I get back an answer that indicates VP8 only, I cannot
> deallocate my H.264 resources, since the answerer may choose to send me
> H.264 anyway.
>
> This contradicts something I think I've heard Cullen claim multiple
> times, but I may have misunderstood Cullen.
>
>
> On 04/08/2016 11:41 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > During the rtcweb session today, while discussing (I think) JSEP issue
> > #247 (Document what should happen when there are no matching codecs in
> > answer), there was a question about happens in a particular case. I
> > think it was:
> >
> > - X offers codecs A and B (sendrecv)
> > - Y answers codec B (sendrecv)
> >
> > The question was whether Y may use codec A when sending to X. Jonathan
> > gave an answer I disagreed with and we had a chat about it. He got an
> > action item to follow up afterwords, then he asked if I would do it.
> >
> > As I read RFC3264, the answer is:
> >
> > Yes, in the above case Y may send A to X.
> >
> > Then a subsequent scenario came up: what would happen if Y has a need
> > to send a (re)offer? Wouldn't this result in an inability to send
> > using A? (Let's assume that Y is unable/unwilling to *receive* A but
> > can send it, even though this is a weird case.)
> >
> > - Y offers codec B (sendrecv)
> > - X answers codec B and A (sendrecv)
> >
> > This *is* permitted by 3264. And in this case Y will be allowed to
> > continue sending using codec A.
> >
> > Relevant pieces of 3264 supporting this interpretation:
> >
> > - section 5.1 (Generating the Initial Offer/Unicast Streams):
> >
> >    ... If multiple formats are listed, it
> >    means that the offerer is capable of making use of any of those
> >    formats during the session.  In other words, the answerer MAY change
> >    formats in the middle of the session, making use of any of the
> >    formats listed, without sending a new offer.
> >
> > - section 6.1 (Generating the Answer/Unicast Streams):
> >
> >    ... For streams marked as sendrecv in the answer,
> >    the "m=" line MUST contain at least one codec the answerer is willing
> >    to both send and receive, from amongst those listed in the offer.
> >    The stream MAY indicate additional media formats, not listed in the
> >    corresponding stream in the offer, that the answerer is willing to
> >    send or receive (of course, it [the answerer] will not be able to
> >    send them at this time, since it was not listed in the offer).
> >
> > - section 8.3.2 (Changing the Set of Media Formats):
> >
> >    The list of media formats used in the session MAY be changed.  To do
> >    this, the offerer creates a new media description, with the list of
> >    media formats in the "m=" line different from the corresponding media
> >    stream in the previous SDP.  This list MAY include new formats, and
> >    MAY remove formats present from the previous SDP.  ...
> >
> >    The corresponding media stream in the answer is formulated as
> >    described in Section 6, and may result in a change in media formats
> >    as well.  Similarly, as described in Section 6, as soon as it sends
> >    its answer, the answerer MUST begin sending media using any formats
> >    in the offer that were also present in the answer, and SHOULD use the
> >    most preferred format in the offer that was also listed in the answer
> >    (assuming the stream allows for sending), and MUST NOT send using any
> >    formats that are not in the offer, even if they were present in a
> >    previous SDP from the peer.  Similarly, when the offerer receives the
> >    answer, it MUST begin sending media using any formats in the answer,
> >    and SHOULD use the most preferred one (assuming the stream allows for
> >    sending), and MUST NOT send using any formats that are not in the
> >    answer, even if they were present in a previous SDP from the peer.
> >
> > I'm not too clear on how this relates to issue #247, but at least I
> > hope we can agree on what 3264 says.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>