Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 01 March 2013 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.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 9CA4E11E80A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.221, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ng4OYqQhhCxU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D1811E809C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (svani@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21FwgUk021840; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:58:45 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r21FwguG2842193; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:58:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r21FwfGb2830347; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:58:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:58:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <201303011558.r21FwfGb2830347@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-reply-to: <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EA7EAB@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> (richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com)
References: <CA+9kkMALouyyzN4dcGdF92TO2HGcBHbHR6fvHg7QC-x5ndCGjw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B10B717@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EA7EAB@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:58:56 -0000

> From: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
> 
> Since multiplexing of the data channel with RTP media has been shown
> as a desirable feature of BUNDLE (and most of its variants), I would
> suggest that this be treated as a significant advantage for BUNDLE
> (and similarly capable variants) over any proposal without it.
> Cullen's "Plan A" is preferred over Plan B precisely because it has
> an incremental muxing advantage.

As far as I can tell from my analysis
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-worley-sdp-bundle-04#section-8),
SCTP-over-DTLS can be demuxed from RTP and STUN quite easily.  (This
comes from RFC 5764 section 5.1.2.)  And SCTP can be demuxed from the
rest as long as you control the range of SCTP ports used.  (And since
the ports aren't actually to route the packets to the receiver (the
underlying UDP does that), you have freedom in choosing SCTP ports.)

So I don't see anything blocking Plan A as compared to Plan B.  Of
course, we have to *do* a bundle technique, but we've got a large
library of possibilities now and can look at the fundamental design
questions in context.

Dale