IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Quick comments on draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add-00

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 07 May 2013 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 003B821F90AF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLLFroV9Egpj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ia0-x22e.google.com (mail-ia0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0DC21F905F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id e36so1157355iag.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 May 2013 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=StDMqXrceflOhkMKBiNEsl1ojgtG2KwK8BrenxwBzSg=; b=dompqbb7YCwqxMLvUhWAm6pwJoS7Ff1Sj3nm8INeIYBvGD7+wWEHeBGvr8pC4sPF4Y fnZXgEkf40Or9q0yuyvrxKs3oukL03eC7pDIEmMI0sp38ba4d6v4w1/ZyoKoz6vTJKW7 FrOfIqZb6gtynLjt/3kSw3DSZokLlPLUp1LlA8Rbb28npeLE1+XGYHkSK5UNmG5rHf4v M+BhvMp8S77EcWSM9m2muI4a7TiDreNq+HnSru96Jv0h99F8K9aNySuoc5LMhigNFPAb /jRtTIXN8AVWClMIff82ux7jWLwP2wsdvTKpjJq1ADeppK/ZVfXCPUnB/IrBbXeigkP6 tGkA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.36.169 with SMTP id r9mr4728778igj.96.1367961457983; Tue, 07 May 2013 14:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.211.16 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 14:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 14:17:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDWy_Koq0Aun5A330O7OOMt9vimWPNe_uznAQdr0TSfow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae934032bc50d0b04dc275883"
Subject: [rtcweb] Quick comments on draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add-00
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: Tue, 07 May 2013 21:17:39 -0000

Hi Adam,

Taking the first look at this, there were two quick issues I wanted to
mention.  The first is this text:

"In the offer-answer model used by RTCWEB, "glare" arises when
offer messages "cross on the wire" (that is, both parties in a session
attempt to change the session at the same time)."

While RTCWEB is being built to support offer/answer, there is no
requirement that an application use that model for the interaction
between two clients.  So, this wording might need to get a tweak.

Second, it seems like the avoidance of glare by having a single
offer/answerer at a time would work in most cases, but I'm wondering
why the initial exchange isn't simply a request to change roles?   If
the initial offer role is determined by time, one of the options seems to
be to accede to a request by the other client to become the offerer.  Is
this because you're concerned that it would add a round trip?  If so,
would including the "potential offer" with the request to change role
solve that problem?

regards,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email