W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2011

Re: [rtcweb] API options for supporting fork with ROAP (Re: SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling)

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:24:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnaE4OX6QHkkr1k5+Ux2WUOixB+4=e52_+gpphM4HKi6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>, rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
2011/10/18 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>:
> I and some people from Ericsson had a discussion about forking the other day
> (the ability to send out one request and have it generate multiple
> PeerConnections on the response).
>
> Options include:
>
> - Sending a request with no content for which state must be kept, creating
> new PeerConnection objects on answer that can handle an answer without
> generating an offer first, and then renegotiating stuff that needs state
> subsequently

> - Creating a new "PeerConnectionFactoryWithOffer" object that holds the
> state of the request, but has the ability to mint several PeerConnections on
> responses

> - Throwing away the initial PeerConnection, munge the incoming Answer to
> look like an Offer, create a PeerConnection from it, and throw away the
> resulting Answer

> - Create the ability to create a PeerConnection from an Offer + an Answer,
> together with the ability to create an Offer without creating a
> PeerConnection (this is a variant of the Factory method)

> - Do something different.....


Hi Harald, if I'm right the problem arises when the RTCweb client
generates a SDP/ROAP offer, sends it to the proxy/server and receives
more than one SDP/ROAP answer. The problem is that, currently, the
PeerConnection object just expects a single answer, am I right?

The above options 1 and 3 require the RTCweb client to generate an
"INVITE" (let me name it INVITE) with no SDP/ROAP, which IMHO limits
too much some possible scenarios. In SIP world, sending an empty
INVITE means that the receiver could offer in the 200 OK response a
SDP offer with codecs not supported by the caller, so the caller must
send ACK and later a BYE. That's commonly ugly so I discourage its
usage for RTCweb.

Said that, I strongly like your option 2 "Creating a new
PeerConnectionFactoryWithOffer". If I understand it properly, when a
RTCweb environment allows media forking, the RTCweb client should
create a PeerConnectionFactoryWithOffer object rather than a
PeerConnection. Then it sends the offer over the wire. Upon receipt of
each response with different ROAP/SDP answer, the object would
internally generate different PeerConnection objects (but the state of
all of them are governed by the PeerConnectionFactoryWithOffer
object). Am I right?


Regards.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 10:25:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC