Re: [rtcweb] A few questions on draft-ejzak-dispatch-webrtc-data-channel-sdpneg-00

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 26 February 2014 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8511A088D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:38:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 MYrcybqsfTCz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CF51A0886 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.89]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X0Pk1n0041vXlb8547eRXL; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:38:25 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X7eR1n0093ZTu2S3d7eRW5; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:38:25 +0000
Message-ID: <530E42B1.4030500@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:38:25 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D1B4DA3@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJuyhsz4ZG_ReNEqmu+fTcSDfXxCnKWaVBhYvjf4XsWxSXB1mQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D1B5097@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJuyhsxz4X2aDNx2Y1Y2Gi9G0D12Ort95QFD=cQ6s-zM5GK9Uw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D1B5305@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <530D1C00.7080701@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <530D1C00.7080701@jesup.org>
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=1393443505; bh=KHJmE6zJ2/2xte+j3SNqRnTFII800umo6UAJKgHEYHc=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=JzJpunYrEzyM0j0xbrq2fciPg6o+YEX2HbSNmkMa055HP41VNDAATDi1KLkxvXclY fx5Vp6/YOHHv9NBBwXkA+tDYeadDc/tzhuOvLkwdH3s7sfW4GV5mch2soDzU4IgSPZ 47NdUtHUdqRDMO+kkjwdhOcPCmJxbmI/syvxkOWe6ee/cInTCe3jEbW3CQvp5Hxr57 1MA1slEy61Pc4jizcf8IC/2hF2hsk2jwvFnlKtkmbC5BmrS8BFCeDr0CSuiTQB7xkt 2+qVEP0/Lb9NlG7k7CybiwpTWsrVh1Mbe3ULXpEjVOo9SEsP8A//hEa7x8Deak89vH uTJnZRfJpLVfg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/yWMxu0dIMVGObmY_slITLfAQetA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A few questions on draft-ejzak-dispatch-webrtc-data-channel-sdpneg-00
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:38:28 -0000

Randell,

I agree that most of this discussion belongs elsewhere.
But there are a few bits that probably do belong here.

CLUE needs *something* that provides an e2e reliable channel. It could 
be a lot of things, e.g. TCP or TLS. We decided to go with the 
SCTP-based data channel that RTCWEB is defining so that we had the 
potential for a Webrtc endpoint to participate in CLUE without a gateway 
on the clue channel.

That means we will also be using the same stack between non-webrtc clue 
endpoints that are using SIP for signaling.

We are still undecided on whether to use DCEP or SDP O/A to negotiate 
the channel we use. If we use DCEP it will be straightforward for a 
webrtc endpoint. But that is a little unnatural for the sip endpoints. 
For them, the SDP O/A approach would be more natural.

It doesn't matter much if the *only* channel being used is the clue 
channel. It will start to matter if there is a desire to use other 
channels for features that can coexist with clue. E.g. BFCP. (But now we 
see a proposal to put BFCP over websocket, so maybe it won't ever be an 
issue for us.)

The important thing is that if clue decides to use SDP O/A for this, 
(the ejzak draft) then we must be confident that it will be feasible for 
a webrtc endpoint, via javascript, to participate in this negotiation 
and use it to set up the clue data channel. That is the part that 
belongs in rtcweb.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/25/14 5:41 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 2/24/2014 10:21 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>
>> I still don't think the information belong to SDP - they define
>> protocol characteristics. The protocol specification should define
>> re-transmission timers etc.
>>
>> Anyway, we can argue about it later. At this moment I think the focus
>> should be on whether to move forward with the mechanism to begin with,
>> and the main feature of the mechanism - which is about negotiating
>> usage of channels :)
>
> This (whether to move forward) is my concern (in addition to Mary's
> about this being the wrong group - MMUSIC is where the SDP should be and
> has been).
>
> The apparent justification for this document is "This document defines
> SDP-based out-of-band negotiation procedures to establish WebRTC data
> channels for transport of well-defined sub- protocols." This seems a
> pretty sparse justification.
>
> We very purposely avoided using SDP for channel setup (after MUCH
> discussion at Boston and elsewhere).  That isn't to say that for
> non-webrtc usage, one could define an SDP used to externally-negotiate
> the settings for DataChannels, which this appears to be.  But I think
> there should a clearer statement as to "why" we should invest the time
> to standardize this now, not just that we "can".  For example, if CLUE
> really wants to use this instead of in-band opens, then maybe there's a
> reason to do so - but don't expect webrtc endpoints to implement this.
> And if so, it should be done in CLUE by request to MMUSIC.
>
> At this point I don't see need to move forward with this, and certainly
> not here.  And I certainly don't want this to delay finalizing the stuff
> needed in MMUSIC for WebRTC use of DataChannels
>