Re: [Wish] Setup:active
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 10 September 2021 07:38 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B9E3A2051
for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 pv04Au4xOfCo for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 00:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 756893A2055
for <wish@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 00:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.236] (unknown [78.156.11.215])
by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44AD07C6F45
for <wish@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:38:34 +0200 (CEST)
To: wish@ietf.org
References: <87mtolfubk.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <667c940c-2c54-3ea4-5db3-531af46591ad@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:38:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87mtolfubk.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------9329F893645DF136B2904B29"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wish/U5PZoSEKGI0YNhjd1S90H4zDUN0>
Subject: Re: [Wish] Setup:active
X-BeenThere: wish@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS <wish.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wish>,
<mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wish/>
List-Post: <mailto:wish@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish>,
<mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:38:44 -0000
FWIW, Chrome was handling this wrong (rejecting a=setup:active) until August 18. https://crbug.com/webrtc/12933 - 95.0.4617.0 was the first version with the fix. So we can say with some confidence that we don't have many clients sending "active". On 9/9/21 9:00 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Hi, > > In Section 4.2, I see the following mysterious passage: > > Unlike [RFC5763] a WHIP client MAY use a setup attribute value of > setup:active in the SDP offer, in which case the WHIP endpoint MUST > use a setup attribute value of setup:passive in the SDP answer. > > After checking 5763, my understanding is that the offerer may choose to > open the DTLS session, while in WebRTC the answerer chooses the party that > opens the session, with the answerer being preferred. Not a big deal, but > requires some tweaks to WebRTC libraries for use with WHIP, and requires > more testing. > > May I most humbly request an explanation of what advantages this is > believed to provide? > > -- Juliusz >
- [Wish] Setup:active Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Wish] Setup:active Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [Wish] Setup:active Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Wish] Setup:active Harald Alvestrand