W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Proposal how to map JSEP to the existing API

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2axP=LhzNyVx--7B9NAB06pUM36K7KUW3t3eDHapcTXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com
> wrote:

> Hi
>
> The JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP) imposes a new set of
> requirements on the signaling flow. One significant improvement is the
> separation of connectivity establishment (ICE) and media negotiation (SDP
> O-A) to allow for ICE "trickling".
> In addition, there are new requirements for handling of session
> descriptions (from the JSEP draft):
> 1. To know if a session description pertains to the local or remote side.
> 2. To know if a session description is an offer or an answer.
> 3. To allow the offer to be specified independently of the answer.
>
> We would like to map this new protocol to the existing API to allow for
> the simple case to remain simple, yet powerful. Key concepts that we would
> like to preserve include that the browser knows when a new signaling
> message needs to be conveyed to the other peer as well as how to handle
> incoming signaling messages. A web developer who would just like to get
> something working should not have to learn specifics about ICE and SDP and
> know how the signaling works and, for example, when some local action
> requires an updated offer to be created.
>
> To support the requirements of JSEP, we propose the following changes to
> the existing API:
>
> For the browser to easily be able to determine whether a signaling message
> is an offer, answer, or candidate line, a corresponding keyword is added to
> the signaling message header (#2 above). For the browser to know if an
> offer or answer was created locally, each PeerConnection instance is
> assigned an internal unique identifier that is also included in the
> signaling message header (#1 above).
>
> To allow emitted offers and answers to be updated locally,
> processSignalingMessage() is changed to support signaling messages to be
> passed into the same PeerConnection instance that they originated from (#3
> above).
>
> // set local description with offer
> processSignalingMessage("SDP OFFER <id>\n<sdp>");     // id is local
>
> // set remote description with offer
> processSignalingMessage("SDP OFFER <id>\n<sdp>");     // id is not local
>
> // set local description with answer
> processSignalingMessage("SDP ANSWER <id>\n<sdp>");    // id is local
>
> // set remote description with answer
> processSignalingMessage("SDP ANSWER <id>\n<sdp>");    // id is not local
>
> // process ICE candidate
> processSignalingMessage("SDP CANDIDATE <id>\n<sdp>");
>


> Signaling messages with offers and answers need to be produced
> asynchronously by the browser. When modifications have been made that
> requires an updated offer, a new signaling message is automatically emitted
> when stable state is reached (no change). Likewise, when a remote offer is
> passed into a PeerConnection instance, an answer is automatically produced
> when stable state is reached (no change).
>

I understand the intent here, but I feel like this may be oversimplifying.
First, I don't think the proposed JSEP API requires any knowledge of SDP or
ICE, only basic O-A semantics; as W3C APIs go, it is a lot simpler than
many others. Second, I don't think an API that you have to use sprintf() to
call is in sync with general programming trends; I think we want this to be
an API, not a protocol handler. Lastly, it also does not faithfully map all
the methods/concepts of the proposed JSEP API, some of which are indicated
below.

That said, if we want to provide this sort of mapping within a JS library,
in order to provide a higher-layer interface to people who are willing to
trade off control for convenience, that seems entirely reasonable. As
mentioned in the draft, more advanced protocol concepts could be provided
in this library.


> Signaling flow, connectivity establishment
> ------------------------------**------------
>
> A:
> new PeerConnection()
>
> // stable state, start gathering ICE candidates
>
> [ signalingCallback ] "SDP CANDIDATE <id>\n<sdp>"
> // send candidate to B
>
> B:
> new PeerConnection()
> processSignalingMessage("SDP CANDIDATE <id>\n<sdp>")
>

We can't start sending candidates until we've at least dispatched an offer;
there are no m= lines or ICE credentials at this point.

>
> // stable state, start gathering ICE candidates
>
> [ signalingCallback ] "SDP CANDIDATE <id>\n<sdp>"
> // send candidate to A
>

We need to be able to control which candidates are used for connectivity
checks here.

>
> A:
> // start establishing connectivity
> processSignalingMessage("SDP CANDIDATE <id>\n<sdp>")
>
>
> Signaling flow, media negotiation
> ------------------------------**---
>
> A:
> addStream()
>
> // stable state, create offer
> [ signalingCallback ] "SDP OFFER <id>\n<sdp>"
>
> *** Offer may be modified and reinserted locally with
> processSignalingMessage()
> // send offer to B


Can hints be supplied to control the generation of the offer?

>
> B:
> addStream()
>
> // process incoming offer
> processSignalingMessage("SDP OFFER <id>\n<sdp>")   // id is not local
>
> // stable state, create answer

[ signalingCallback ] "SDP ANSWER <id>\n<sdp>"
>

We don't want to generate an ANSWER here, as the callee has not yet
consented to the call. Also, as above, can hints be supplied to control the
generation of the answer? Can a provisional answer be generated and
installed?


> *** Answer may be modified and reinserted locally with
> processSignalingMessage()
>
> // B has all info needed to receive
> [ onaddstream ]
>

onaddstream should be fired upon the receipt of the offer, so that B can
know what kind of stream to add to the PeerConnection.

>
> // send answer to A
>
> A:
> // process incoming answer
> processSignalingMessage("SDP ANSWER <id>\n<sdp>")   // id is not local
>
> // media flowing from A to B
>
> [ signalingCallback ] "SDP ACK <id>\n<empty sdp>"
>


> // A has all info needed to receive
> [ onaddstream ]
>
> // send ack to B
>
> B:
> // process incoming ack
> processSignalingMessage("SDP ACK <id>\n<empty sdp>")   // id is not local
>
> // media flowing from B to A


I think media needs to start flowing once B sends its answer to A, or B's
initial media may be lost.

>
>
> /Adam
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 14:55:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:27 UTC