W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [Bug 20816] "Hold" unspecified

From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <51715F2E.7070004@jesup.org>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 4/19/2013 9:47 AM, IƱaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2013/4/19 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>:
>> So first:
>>
>> - What do you mean by "hold"?
> "Putting a peer on hold" means:
>
> 1) Muting my local streams.
> 2) And tell the peer about it.
>
> Step 2 in SDP is achieved by re-sending my local SDP to the peer with
> "a=sendonly" or "a=inactive" (better) within each "m" section.
> The peer accepts it by sending its remote SDP with "a=recvonly" or "a=inactive".

Well, that's *one* definition of Hold.  Another (perhaps more common) 
one is:

1) changing my local streams to muzak/video-slate
2) stop local playback of incoming audio/video
3) optionally renegotiating as sendonly, but for Hold this is generally 
a Bad Idea, as it mean un-hold requires renegotiation, which is not 
expected by most people

Black/silence is also confusing to the other user (especially the black 
video) - we had a lot of experience with this and non-techy users at 
WorldGate.  For some reason with video people assume something has 
failed, while with audio they're a little more forgiving (in a situation 
where someone might put them on Hold).

>> - Where is the specification of how other people are using SDP to achieve
>> the thing you mean?
> RFC 4566 "SDP":
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4566#section-6
>
>
>
> Of course anyone can notify the peer about "hold" in tons of ways, bu
> when dealing with SIP and SDP (and WebRTC deals with SDP) IMHO it
> should be possible to reuse the SDP itself for those kind of common
> features.
>


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 15:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC