Re: A proposal for solving non-muxed RTCP *and* ICE freezing

Those are fair questions... I'm not sure you'll like the answer but here 
it is:

Nobody is required to use it. There are some "compatibility" reasons why 
we might need this... or so it's been told. I'm not sure who has boxes 
that don't mux RTP/RTCP but do support WebRTC compatible DTLS exchange 
in the wild. But for the sake of being able to achieve some parity with 
WebRTC 1.0 this was determined as "needed". This is also the reason why 
it was somewhat hidden "feature" since it's not exactly a high priority 
item but needs to exist.

-Robin


> Iñaki Baz Castillo <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>
> May 5, 2014 at 7:17 PM
>
> Hi, sure I've missed some previous threads about this subject but...
> why do we need non-mutex RTCP?
>
> If I'm not wrong, non-mutex RTCP means two separate DTLS connections
> with different sessions keys for SRTP and SRTCP and, of course, two
> separate ICE procedures which bring more complexity (what happens if
> the transport for RTCP gets a DTLS error alarm?).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> PS: Sorry if the question is too obvious. I still have to take a look
> to new topics :)