- From: jywang <jywang@cnic.cn>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:03:03 +0800
- Cc: <public-webrtc@w3.org>
-Wang Jinyi -CNIC CAS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Håkansson LK" <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> To: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com> Cc: <public-webrtc@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:08 AM Subject: RE: Symmetrical streams ________________________________________ From: Cullen Jennings [fluffy@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:50 PM To: Stefan Håkansson LK Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org Subject: Re: Symmetrical streams On Jun 29, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: >> (The discussion below involves PeerConnection. As we all know this is only one of the API proposals, and no decision has been >> taken on what starting point(s) the WG should use. But I thought it would be nice to discuss API functionality for a change! And >> the discussion may be relevant for the other API as well.) >> >> It is likely that many uses of APIs for real-time communication will be for symmetrical services - symmetrical in the sense that >> the Streams flowing from A to B will have counterparts flowing from B to A. >> >> Video conferencing is a typical example, there will likely be one Stream containing one audio and one video component from A to B >> and a corresponding Stream from B to A. >> >> For cases when all streams are not multiplexed over the same 5-tuple it would be beneficial if the IP-addresses and ports found >> to work for the A to B streams are re-used for B to A streams for several reasons: >> -reduce NAT traversal problems >> -simplify QoS handling >> -simplify interop with legacy systems >> >> However, in the current PeerConnection API there is no way ask for pairing symmetrical Streams in this way. There are several >> ways this could be added, one way could be to add a second Stream as a second (optional) argument to addStream. When this >> argument is used the PeerConnection pairs the transport of the added Stream with the incoming Stream (identified by the label). >> >> The use would be (refer to http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/webrtc.html#peer-to-peer-connections): >> 1. A side does addStream with a locally generated Stream as argument >> 2. B side gets an onaddstream event >> 3. B side does addStream with a locally generated Stream _and_ the received Stream as arguments >> 4. Under the hood the PeerConnections makes the Streams use the same 5-tuples for transport >> >> (Other options include: >> * adding an optional argument to addStream that the A side uses to indicate that a return stream is expected; the application on >> the B side is notfied about this and is expected to provide a Stream >> * having the PeerConnections automatically re-use open channels; if there is an RTP audio stream flowing from A to B, and B adds >> a Stream that contains an audio component, that audio would flow on the same channel) >> >> Comments? >Hi Stefan, >I agree we need want to have this symmetry property when possible. When I read the whatwg proposal I just >assumed that it actually >worked in the way you mention on your last option ( the PeerConnections automatically >re-use open channels ). Upon closer >reading, it does not seem to say that all. I'll have to think more about this but >having the underly thing setting up the streams >just take care of this seem like a nice property. >I guess the question comes down to step 3 of your proposal - do we need to pass the received Stream or not? >Either way sees like >the underlying function could figure it out. >Thoughts? Hi Cullen, yes I agree to that what it basically comes down to is: should this be visible from the API (either when A side adds a Stream, or when B side does as a response to the A side's new stream) or not. Stefan Hi All, Is there any valuable use case which show that an application or a user need to know this, or they want to configure streams separately? Making this property is visible or not is not a difficult thing, isn't it? Therefore, if we need the visibility for some cases, we should open this feature to user; otherwise, leave this issue to the underly thing. Moreover, the property can be added in the future. Wang Jinyi
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 05:32:57 UTC