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

You don't, and most people don't, so you can just ignore its existence in
the API.  But interop requires it, so if we want a "1.0 on top of ORTC"
shim, we need non-muxed RTCP.  But I think the proposal I made provides for
this with minimal pain.


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2014-05-03 3:21 GMT+02:00 Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>:
> > We don't have a way for the app to express that it wants to have RTCP
> that isn't multiplexed with RTP
>
> 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 :)
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>