IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP and ssrc-group,

"Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 099BE1ACE04 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 GtORVKOlgJ0Y for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpatc-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B64B1ACDE6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.65]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 87C51B5E20DB1; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:20:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s9MGK58K009733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:20:05 -0400
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.8.56]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:20:05 -0400
From: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP and ssrc-group,
Thread-Index: AQHP7g0HdeZEO6Q8ck+bZW3ftl2D4pw8SgYg
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:20:05 +0000
Message-ID: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E5EC179@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CALiegfmH8rRyEDbJjQ=kzMv0nGC=S9gNsE7roE=kqJyVcfgy8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0Losm_FGAvaag2Ee79_mVgXo_NESL_PO6S_GTa7Cj_iQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfn0YRopEMNfUtFLG01dfp=6suMtiTYVMigoEtw+g7X8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfn0YRopEMNfUtFLG01dfp=6suMtiTYVMigoEtw+g7X8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ygCLZnp7dHuPRbzT617guQqf4eQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP and ssrc-group,
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, 22 Oct 2014 16:20:12 -0000

> 2014-10-21 22:02 GMT+02:00 Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>:
> > In all seriousness, it would be nice if this behavior was standardized, so
> > that applications could have deterministic behavior. If we can come up
> with
> > appropriate text about the ordering of SSRCs, this could be written into
> > JSEP's handling of setLocalDescription.
> 
> So I expect a new draft about how to map ssrc values and payload-types
> in SDP. I think we already have 4 or 5 drafts about mapping or

<Raju>
Do we really need a new draft? or Won't the mechanism (a=ssrc:<ssrc> fmt:<payload>) mentioned in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5576#section-6.3 be sufficient for this? (which is being discussed in this same thread)	
</Raju>

BR
Raju

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email