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, 01 Mar 2013 10:58:41 -0500
Message-Id: <201303011558.r21FwfGb2830347@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
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
- [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Dale R. Worley
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Dale R. Worley
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB Dale R. Worley
- [rtcweb] Time allocation for video codec MTI (Re:… Harald Alvestrand
- [rtcweb] Time division for codec discussion (Re: … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video codec MTI … Ted Hardie