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
>