[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                            E. Ivov
Internet-Draft                                                     Jitsi
Intended status: Standards Track                              E. Marocco
Expires: December 19, 2013                                Telecom Italia
                                                             P. Thatcher
                                                                  Google
                                                           June 17, 2013


  No Plan: Economical Use of the Offer/Answer Model in WebRTC Sessions
                      with Multiple Media Sources
                      draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan-01

Abstract

   This document describes a model for the lightweight use of SDP Offer/
   Answer in WebRTC.  The goal is to minimize reliance on Offer/Answer
   exchanges in a WebRTC session and provide applications with the tools
   necessary to implement the signalling that they may need in a way
   that best fits their custom requirements and topologies.  This
   simplifies signalling of multiple media sources or providing RTP
   Synchronisation source (SSRC) identification in multi-party sessions.
   Another important goal of this model is to remove from clients
   topological constraints such as the requirement to know in advance
   all SSRC identifiers that they could potentially introduce in a
   particular session.

   The model described here is similar to the one employed by the data
   channel JavaScript APIs in WebRTC, where methods are supported on
   PeerConnection without being reflected in SDP.

   This document does not question the use of SDP and the Offer/Answer
   model or the value they have in terms of interoperability with legacy
   or other non-WebRTC devices.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.







Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Reliance on Offer/Answer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Interoperability with Legacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Additional Session Control and Signalling . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Demultiplexing and Identifying Streams
       (Use of Bundle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Simulcasting, FEC, Layering and RTX (Open Issue)  . . . . . .  10
   7.  WebRTC API Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Suggested WebRTC API Using TrackSendParams  . . . . . . .  12
       7.1.1.  Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Background

   In its early stages the RTCWEB working group chose to use the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) and the Offer/Answer model [RFC3264] when
   establishing and negotiating sessions.  This choice was also
   accompanied by the decision not to mandate a specific signalling
   protocol so that, once interoperability has been achieved, web
   applications can choose the semantics that best fit their



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   requirements.  In some scenarios however, such as those involving the
   use of multiple media sources, these choices have left open the issue
   of exactly which operations should be handled by SDP Offer/Answer and
   which of them should be left to application-specific signalling.

   At the time of writing of this document, the RTCWEB working group is
   considering two approaches to addressing the issue, that are often
   referred to as Plan A [PlanA] and Plan B [PlanB].  Both of them
   describe semantics that require Offer/Answer exchanges in a number of
   situations where this could be avoided, particularly when adding or
   removing media sources to a session.  This requirement applies
   equally to cases where a client adds the stream of a newly activated
   web cam, a simulcast flow or upon the arrival or departure of a
   conference participant.

   Plan A handles such notifications with the addition or removal of
   independent m= lines [PlanA], while Plan B relies on the use of
   multiplexed m= lines but still depends on the Offer/Answer exchanges
   for the addition or removal of media stream identifiers [MSID].

   By taking the Offer/Answer approach, both Plan A and Plan B take away
   from the application the opportunity to handle such events in a way
   that is most fitting for the use case, which, among other things,
   also goes against the working group's decision to not to define a
   specific signalling protocol.  (It could be argued that it is
   therefore only natural how proponents of each plan, having different
   use cases in mind, are remarkably far from reaching consensus).

   Reliance on preliminary announcement of SSRC identifiers is another
   issue.  While this could be perceived as relatively straightforward
   in one-to-one sessions or even conference calls within controlled
   environments, it can be a problem in the following cases:

   o  interoperability with legacy/non-WebRTC endpoints

   o  use within non-controlled and potentially federated conference
      environments where new RTP streams may appear relatively often.
      In such cases the signalling required to describe all of them
      through Offer/Answer may represent substantial overhead while none
      or only a part of it (e.g.  the description of a main, active
      speaker stream) may be required by the application.

   By increasing the number of Offer/Answer exchanges Both Plan A and
   Plan B also increase the risk of encountering glare situations (i.e.
   cases where both parties attempt to modify a session at the same
   time).  While glare is also possible with basic Offer/Answer and
   resolution of such situations must be implemented anyway, the need to
   frequently resort to such code may either negatively impact user



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   experience (e.g. when "back off" resolution is used) or require
   substantial modifications in the Offer/Answer model and/or further
   venturing into the land of signalling protocols
   [ROACH-GLARELESS-ADD].

2.  Introduction

   The goal of this document is to provide directions for use of the SDP
   Offer/Answer model in a way that satisfies the following
   requirements:

   o  the addition and removal of media sources (e.g. conference
      participants, multiple web cams or "slides" ) must be possible
      without the need of Offer/Answer exchanges;

   o  the addition or removal of simulcast or layered streams must be
      possible without the need for Offer/Answer exchanges beyond the
      initial declaration of such capabilities for either direction.

   o  call establishment must not require preliminary announcement or
      even knowledge of all potentially participating media sources;

   o  application specific signalling should be used to cover most
      semantics following call establishment, such as adding, removing
      or identifying SSRCs;

   o  straightforward interoperability with widely deployed legacy
      endpoints with rudimentary support for Offer/Answer.  This
      includes devices that allow for one audio and potentially one
      video m= line and that expect to only ever be required to render a
      single RTP stream at a time for any of them.  (Note that this does
      NOT include devices that expect to see multiple "m=video" lines
      for different SSRCs as they can hardly be viewed as "widely
      deployed legacy").

   To achieve the above requirements this specification expects that
   browsers and WebRTC endpoints in general will only use SDP Offer/
   Answer to establish transport channels and initialize an RTP stack
   and codec/processing chains.  This also includes any renegotiation
   that requires the re-initialisation of these chains.  For example,
   adding VP8 to a session that was setup with only H.264, would
   obviously still require an Offer/Answer exchange.

   All other session control and signalling are to be left to
   applications.

   The actual Offer/Answer semantics presented here do not differ
   fundamentally from those proposed by Plan A and Plan B. The main



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   differentiation point of this approach is the fact that the exact
   protocol mechanism is left to WebRTC applications.  Such applications
   or lightweight signalling gateways can then implement either Plan A,
   or Plan B, or an entirely different signalling protocol, depending on
   what best matches their use cases and topology.

3.  Reliance on Offer/Answer

   The model presented in this specification relies on use of SDP and
   Offer/Answer in quite the same way as many of the pre-WebRTC (and
   most of the legacy) endpoints do: negotiating formats, establishing
   transport channels and exchanging, in a declarative way, media and
   transport parameters that are then used for the initialization of the
   corresponding stacks.

   The following is an example presenting what this specification views
   as a typical offer sent by a WebRTC endpoint:


   v=0
   o=- 0 0 IN IP4 198.51.100.33
   s=
   t=0 0

   a=group:BUNDLE audio video                // declaring BUNDLE Support
   c=IN IP4 198.51.100.33
   a=ice-ufrag:Qq8o/jZwknkmXpIh              // initializing ICE
   a=ice-pwd:gTMACiJcZv1xdPrjfbTHL5qo
   a=ice-options:trickle
   a=fingerprint:sha-1                       // DTLS-SRTP keying
         a4:b1:97:ab:c7:12:9b:02:12:b8:47:45:df:d8:3a:97:54:08:3f:16

   m=audio 5000 RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8
   a=mid:audio
   a=rtcp-mux

   a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2                  // PT mappings
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000

   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:csrc-audio-level  //5825 header
   a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level  //extensions

   [ICE Candidates]

   m=video 5002 RTP/SAVPF 97 98
   a=mid:video
   a=rtcp-mux



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   a=rtpmap:97 VP8/90000     // PT mappings and resolutions capabilities
   a=imageattr:97 \
     send [x=[480:16:800],y=[320:16:640],par=[1.2-1.3],q=0.6] \
          [x=[176:8:208],y=[144:8:176],par=[1.2-1.3]] \
     recv *
   a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
   a=imageattr:98 send [x=800,y=640,sar=1.1,q=0.6] [x=480,y=320] \
                  recv [x=330,y=250]

   a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:fec-source-ssrc   //5825 header
   a=extmap:4 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:rtx-source-ssrc   //extensions

   a=max-send-ssrc:{*:1}                     // declaring maximum
   a=max-recv-ssrc:{*:4}                     // number of SSRCs

   [ICE Candidates]




   The answer to the offer above would have roughly the same structure
   and content.  The most important aspects here are:

   o  Preserves interoperability with most kinds of legacy or non-WebRTC
      endpoints.

   o  Allows the negotiation of most parameters that concern the media/
      RTP stack (typically the browser).

   o  Only a single Offer/Answer exchange is required for session
      establishment and, in most cases, for the entire duraftion of a
      session.

   o  Leaves complete freedom to applications as to the way that they
      are going to signal any other information such as SSRC
      identification information or the addition or removal of RTP
      streams.

3.1.  Interoperability with Legacy

   Interoperating with the "widely deployed legacy endpoints" is one of
   the main reasons for the RTCWEB working group to choose the SDP Offer
   /Answer model as basis for media negotiation.  It is hence important
   to clarify the compatibility claims that this specification makes.

   A "widely deployed legacy endpoint" is considered to have the
   following characteristics:




Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   o  Likely to use the SIP protocol.

   o  Capability to gracefully handle one audio and potentially one
      video m= line in an SDP Offer.

   o  Capability to render one SSRC per m=line at any given moment but
      multiple, consecutive SSRCs over a period of time.  This would be
      the case with transferred session replacements for example.  While
      the capability to handle multiple SSRCs simultaneously is not
      uncommon it cannot be relied upon and should first be confirmed by
      signalling.

   o  Possibly have features such as ICE, BUNDLE, RTCP-MUX, etc.  Just
      as likely not to.

   o  Very unlikely to announce in SDP the SSRCs that they intend to use
      for a given session.

   o  Exact set of features and capabilities: Guaranteed to be wildly
      and widely diverse.

   While it is relatively simple for RTCWEB to accommodate some of the
   above, it is obviously impossible to design a model that could simply
   be labeled as "compatible with legacy".  It is reasonable to assume
   that use cases involving use of such endpoints will be designed for a
   relatively specific set of devices and applications.  The role of the
   WebRTC framework is to hence provide a least-common-denominator model
   that can then be extended by applications.

   It is just as important not to make choices or assumptions that will
   render interoperability for some applications or topologies difficult
   or even impossible.

   This is exactly what the use of Offer/Answer discussed here strives
   to achieve.  Audio/Video offers originating from WebRTC endpoints
   will always have a maximum of one audio and one video m= line.  It
   will be up to applications to determine exactly how many streams they
   can afford to send once such a session has been established.  The
   exact mechanism to do this is outside the scope of this document (or
   WebRTC in general).

   Note that it is still possible for WebRTC endpoints to indicate
   support for a maximum number of incoming or outgoing streams for
   reasons such as processing constraints.  Use of the "max-send-ssrc"
   and "max-recv-ssrc" attributes [MAX-SSRC] could be one way of doing
   this, although that mechanism would need to be extended to provide
   ways of distinguishing between independent flows and complementary
   ones such as layered FEC and RTX.  Even with this in mind it is still



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   important, not to rely on the presence of that indication in incoming
   descriptions as well as to provide applications with a way of
   retrieving such capabilities from the WebRTC stack (e.g. the
   browser).

   Determining whether a peer has the ability to seamlessly switch from
   one SSRC to another is also left to application specific signalling.
   It is worth noting that protocols such as SIP for example, often
   accompany SSRC replacements with extra signalling (re-INVITEs with a
   "replaces" header) that can easily be reused by applications or
   mapped to something that they deem more convenient.

   For the sake of interoperability this specification strongly advises
   against the use of multiple m= lines for a single media type.  Not
   only would such use be meaningless to a large number of legacy
   endpoints but it is also likely to be mishandled by many of them and
   to cause unexpected behaviour.

   Finally, it is also worth pointing out that there is a significant
   number of feature rich non-WebRTC applications and devices that have
   relatively advanced, modern sets of capabilities.  Such endpoints
   hardly fit the "legacy" qualification.  Yet, as is often the case
   with novel and/or proprietary applications, they too have adopted
   diverse signalling mechanisms and the requirements described in this
   section fully apply when it comes to interoperating with them.

4.  Additional Session Control and Signalling

   o  Adding and removing RTP streams to an existing session.

   o  Accepting and refusing some of them.

   o  Identifying SSRCs and obtaining additional metadata for them (e.g.
      the user corresponding to a specific SSRC).

   All of the above semantics are best handled and hence should be left
   to applications.  There are numerous existing or emerging solutions,
   some of them developed by the IETF, that already cover this.  This
   includes CLUE channels [CLUE], the SIP Event Package For Conference
   State [RFC4575] and its XMPP variant [COIN] as well as the protocols
   defined within the Centralised Conferencing IETF working group [XCON]
   . Additional mechanisms, undoubtedly many based on JSON, are very
   likely to emerge in the future as WebRTC applications address varying
   use cases, scenarios and topologies.

   The most important part of this specification is hence to prevent
   certain assumptions or topologies from being imposed on applications.
   One example of this is the need to know and include in the Offer/



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   Answer exchange, all the SSRCs that can show up in a session.  This
   can be particularly problematic for scenarios that involve non-WebRTC
   endpoints.

   Large scale conference calls, potentially federated through RTP
   translator-like bridges, would be another problematic scenario.
   Being able to always pre-announce SSRCs in such situations could of
   course be made to work but it would come at a price.  It would either
   require a very high number of Offer/Answer updates that propagate the
   information through the entire topology, or use of tricks such as
   pre-allocating a range of "fake" SSRCs, announcing them to
   participants and then overwriting the actual SSRCs with them.
   Depending on the scenario both options could prove inappropriate or
   inefficient while some applications may not even need such
   information.  Others could be retrieving it through simplistic means
   such as access to a centralized resource (e.g. an URL pointing to a
   JSON description of the conference).

5.  Demultiplexing and Identifying Streams (Use of Bundle)

   This document assumes use of BUNDLE in WebRTC endpoints.  This
   implies that all RTP streams are likely to end up being received on
   the same port.  A demuxing mechanism is therefore necessary in order
   for these packets to then be fed into the appropriate processing
   chain (i.e. matched to an m= line).

      Note: it is important to distinguish between the demultiplexing
      and the identification of incoming flows.  Throughout this
      specification the former is used to refer to the process of
      choosing selecting a depacketizing/decoding/processing chain to
      feed incoming packets to.  Such decisions depend solely on the
      format that is used to encode the content of incoming packets.

      The above is not to be confused with the process of making
      rendering decision about a processed flow.  Such decisions include
      showing a "current speaker" flow at a specific location, window or
      video tag, while choosing a different one for a second, "slides"
      flow.  Another example would be the possibility to attach "Alice",
      "Bob" and "Carol" labels on top of the appropriate UI components.
      This specification leaves such rendering choices entirely to
      application-specific signalling as described in Section 4.

   This specification uses demuxing based on RTP payload types.  When
   creating offers and answers WebRTC applications MUST therefore
   allocate RTP payload types only once per bundle group.  In cases
   where rtcp-mux is in use this would mean a maximum of 96 payload
   types per bundle [RFC5761].  It has been pointed out that some legacy
   devices may have unpredictable behaviour with payload types that are



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   outside the 96-127 range reserved by [RFC3551] for dynamic use.  Some
   applications or implementations may therefore choose not to use
   values outside this range.  Whatever the reason, offerers that find
   they need more than the available payload type numbers, will simply
   need to either use a second bundle group or not use BUNDLE at all
   (which in the case of a single audio and a single video m= line
   amounts to roughly the same thing).  This would also imply building a
   dynamic table, mapping SSRCs to PTs and m= lines, in order to then
   also allow for RTCP demuxing.

   While not desirable, the implications of such a decision would be
   relatively limited.  Use of trickle ICE [TRICKLE-ICE] is going to
   lessen the impact on call establishment latency.  Also, the fact that
   this would only occur in a limited number of cases makes it unlikely
   to have a significant effect on port consumption.

   An additional requirement that has been expressed toward demuxing is
   the ability to assign incoming packets with the same payload type to
   different processing chains depending on their SSRCs.  A possible
   example for this is a scenario where two video streams are being
   rendered on different video screens that each have their own decoding
   hardware.

   While the above may appear as a demuxing and a decoding related
   problem it is really mostly a rendering policy specific to an
   application.  As such it should be handled by app. specific
   signalling that could involve custom-formatted, per-SSRC information
   that accompanies SDP offers and answers.

6.  Simulcasting, FEC, Layering and RTX (Open Issue)

   From a WebRTC perspective, repair flows such as layering, FEC, RTX
   and to some extent simulcasting, present an interesting challenge,
   which is why they are considered an open issue by this specification.

   On the one hand they are transport utilities that need to be
   understood, supported and used by browsers in a way that is mostly
   transparent to applications.  On the other, some applications may
   need to be made aware of them and given the option to control their
   use.  This could be necessary in cases where their use needs to be
   signalled to non-WebRTC endpoints in an application specific way.
   Another example is the possibility for an application to choose to
   disable some or all repair flows because it has been made aware by
   application-specific signalling that they are temporarily not being
   used/rendered by the remote end (e.g. because it is only displaying a
   thumbnail or because a corresponding video tag is not currently
   visible).




Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   One way of handling such flows would be to advertise them in the way
   suggested by [RFC5956] and to then control them through application
   specific signalling.  This options has the merit of already existing
   but it also implies the pre-announcement and propagation of SSRCs and
   the bloated signalling that this incurs.  Also, relying solely on
   Offer/Answer here would expose an offerer to the typical race
   condition of repair SSRCs arriving before the answer and the
   processing ambiguity that this would imply.

   Another approach could be a combination of RTCP and RTP header
   extensions [RFC5285] in a way similar to the one employed by the
   Rapid Synchronisation of RTP Flows [RFC6051].  While such a mechanism
   is not currently defined by the IETF, specifying it could be
   relatively straightforward:

   Every packet belonging to a repair flow could carry an RTP header
   extension [RFC5285] that points to the source stream (or source layer
   in case of layered mechanisms).

   Again, these are just some possibilities.  Different mechanisms may
   and probably will require different extensions or signalling
   ([SRCNAME] will likely be an option for some).  In some cases, where
   layering information is provided by the codec, an extensions is not
   going to be necessary at all.

   In cases where FEC or simulcast relations are not immediately needed
   by the recipient, this information could also be delayed until the
   reception of the first RTCP packet.

7.  WebRTC API Requirements

   One of the main characteristics of this specification is the use of
   SDP for transport channel setup and media stack initialisation only.
   In order for applications to be able to cover everything else it is
   important that WebRTC APIs actually allow for it.  Given the initial
   directions taken by early implementations and specification work,
   this is currently almost but not entirely possible.

   The following is a list of requirements that the WebRTC APIs would
   need to satisfy in order for this specification to be usable.  (Note:
   some of the items are already possible and are only included for the
   sake of completeness.)

   1.  Expose the SSRCs of all local MediaStreamTrack-s that the
       application attaches to a PeerConnection.

   2.  Expose the SSRCs of all remote MediaStreamTrack-s that are
       received on a PeerConnection



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   3.  Expose to applications all locally generated repair flows that
       exist for a source (e.g. FEC and RTX flows that will be generated
       for a webcam) their types relations and SSRCs.

   4.  Expose information about the maximum number of incoming streams
       that can be decoded and rendered.

   5.  Applications should be able to pause and resume (disable and
       enable) any MediaStreamTrack.  This should also include the
       possibility to do so for specific repair flows.

   6.  Information about how certain MediaStreamTrack-s relate to each
       other (e.g. a given audio flow is related to a specific video
       flow) may be exchanged by applications after media has started
       arriving.  At that point the corresponding MediaStreamTrack-s may
       have been announced to the application within independent
       MediaStream-s. It should therefore be possible for applications
       to join such tracks within a single MediaStream.

   The following section Section 7.1 provides suggestions for addressing
   the above requirements.

7.1.  Suggested WebRTC API Using TrackSendParams

   This document proposes that the following methods and dictionaries be
   added to the WebRTC API.  The changes follow the model of
   createDataChannel, which has a JS method on PeerConnection that makes
   it possible to add data channels without going through SDP.
   Furthermore, just like createDataChannel allows 2 ways to handle
   neogitation (the "I know what I'm doing; Here's what I want to send;
   Let me signal everything" mode and the "please take care of it for
   me; send an OPEN message" mode), this also has 2 ways to handle
   negotiation (the "I know what I'm doing; Here's what I want to send;
   Let me signal everything" mode and the "please take care of it for
   me; send SDP back and forth" mode).

   Following the success of createDataChannel, this allows simple
   applications to Just Work and more advanced applications to easily
   control what they need to.  In particular, it's possible to use this
   API to implement either Plan A or Plan B.


   // The following two method are added to RTCPeerConnection
   partial interface RTCPeerConnection {
    // Create a stream that is used to send a source stream.
    // The MediaSendStream.description can be used for signalling.
    // No media is sent until addStream(MediaSendStream) is called.
    LocalMediaStream createLocalStream(MediaStream sourceStream);



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


    // Create a stream that is used to receive media from the remote side,
    // given the parameters signalled from MedaiSendStream.description.
    MediaStream createRemoteStream(MediaStreamDescription description);
   }


   interface LocalMediaStream implements MediaStream {
     // This can be changed at any time, but especially before calling
     // PeerConnection.addStream
     attribute MediaStreamDescription description;
   }


   // Represents the parameters used to either send or receive a stream
   // over a PeerConnection.
   dictionary MediaStreamDescription {
     MediaStreamTrackDescription[] tracks;
   }


   // Represents the parameters used to either send or receive a track over
   // a PeerConnection.  A track has many "flows", which can be grouped
   // together.
   dictionary MediaStreamTrackDescription {
     // Same as the MediaStreamTrack.id
     DOMString id;

     // Same as the MediaStreamTrack.kind
     DOMString kind;

     // A track can have many "flows", such as for Simulcast, FEC, etc.
     // And they can be grouped in arbitrary ways.
     MediaFlowDescription[] flows;
     MediaFlowGroup[] flowGroups;
   }

   // Represents the parameters used to either send or receive a "flow"
   // over a PeerConnection.  A "flow" is a media that arrives with a
   // single, unique SSRC.  One to many flows together make up the media
   // for a track.  For example, there may be Simulcast, FEC, and RTX
   // flows.
   dictionay MediaFlowDescription {
     // The "flow id" must be unique to the track, but need not be unique
     // outside of the track (two tracks could both have a flow with the
     // same flow ID).
     DOMString id;

     // Each flow can go over its own transport.  If the JS sets this to a



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


     // transportId that doesn't have a transport setup already, the
     // browser will use SDP negotiation to setup a transport to back that
     // transportId.  If This is set to an MID in the SDP, then that MID's
     // transport is used.
     DOMString transportId;

     // The SSRC used to send the flow.
     unsigned int ssrc;

     // When used as receive parameters, this indicates the possible list
     // of codecs that might come in for this flow.  For exmample, a given
     // receive flow could be setup to receive any of OPUS, ISAC, or PCMU.
     // When used as send parameters, this indicates that the first codec
     // should be used, but the browser can use send other codecs if it
     // needs to because of either bandwidth or CPU constraints.
     MediaCodecDescription[] codecs;
   }


   dictionary MediaFlowGroup {
     DOMString type;  // "SIM" for Simulcast, "FEC" for FEC, etc
     DOMString[] flowids;
   }

   dictionary MediaCodecDescription {
     unsigned byte payloadType;
     DOMString name;
     unsigned int? clockRate;
     unsigned int? bitRate;
     // A grab bag of other fmtp that will need to be further defined.
     MediaCodecParam[] params;
   }

   dictionary MediaCodecParam {
     DOMString key;
     DOMString value;
   }
   }



   Some additional notes:

   o  When LocalMediaStreams are added using addStream,
      onnegotiatedneeded is not called, and those streams are never
      reflected in future SDP exchanges.  Indeed, it would be impossible
      to put them in the SDP without first resolving if that would be
      Plan A SDP or Plan B SDP.



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   o  Just like piles of attributes would need to be defined for Plan A
      and for Plan B, similar attributes would need to be defined here
      (Luckily, much work has already been done figuring out what those
      parameters are :).

   API Pros:

   o  Either Plan A or Plan B or could be implemented in Javascript
      using this API

   o  It exposes all the same functionality to the Javascript as SDP,
      but in a much nicer format that is much easier to work with.

   o  Any other signalling mechanism, such as Jingle or CLUE could be
      implemented using this API.

   o  There is almost no risk of signalling glare.

   o  Debugging errors with misconfigured descriptions should be much
      easier with this than with large SDP blobs.

   API Cons:

   o  Now there are two slightly different ways to add streams: by
      creating a LocalMediaStream first, and not.  This is, however,
      analogous to setting "negotiated: true" in createDataChannel.  On
      way is "Just Work", and the other is more advanced control.

   o  All the options in MediaCodecDescription are a bit complicated.
      Really, this is only necessary because Plan A requires being able
      to specify codec parameters per SSRC, and set each flow on
      different transports.  If we did not have this requirement, we
      could simplify.

7.1.1.  Example 2

   Following is an example of how these API additions would be used:


   // Imagine I have MyApp, handles creating a PeerConnection,
   // signalling, and rendering streams.  This is how the new API could be
   // used.
   var peerConnection = MyApp.createPeerConnection();

   // On sender side:
   var stream = MyApp.getMediaStream();
   var localStream = peerConnection.createSendStream(stream);
   sendStream.description = MyApp.modifyStream(localStream.description)



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   MyApp.signalAddStream(localStream.description, function(response)) {
     if (!response.rejected) {
       // Media will not be sent.
       peerConnection.addStream(localStream);
     }
   }

   // On receiver side:
   MyApp.onAddStreamSignalled = function(streamDescription) {
     var stream = peerConnection.createReceiveStream(streamDescription);
     MyApp.renderStream(stream);
   }

   // In this exchange, the MediaStreamDescription signalled from the
   // sender to the receiver may have looked something like this:

   {
     tracks: [
     {
       id: "audio1",
       kind: "audio",
       flows: [
       {
         id: "main",
         transportId: "transport1",
         ssrc: 1111,
         codecs: [
         {
           payloadType: 111,
           name: "opus",
           // ... more codec details
         },
         {
           payloadType: 112,
           name: "pcmu",
           // ... more codec details
         }]
      }]
    },
    {
       id: "video1",
       kind: "video",
       flows: [
       {
         id: "sim0",
         transportId: "transport2",
         ssrc: 2222,
         codecs: [



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


         {
           payloadType: 122,
           name: "vp8"
           // ... more codec details
         }]
      },
      {
        id: "sim1",
        transportId: "transport2",
        ssrc: 2223,
        codecs: [
        {
          payloadType: 122,
          name: "vp8",
          // ... more codec details
        }]
      },
      {
        id: "sim2",
        transportId: "transport2",
        ssrc: 2224,
        codecs: [
        {
          payloadType: 122,
          name: "vp8",
          // ... more codec details
        }]
      },

      {
        id: "sim0fec",
        transportId: "transport2",
        ssrc: 2225,
        codecs: [
        {
          payloadType: 122,
          name: "vp8",
          // ...
        }]
      }],
      flowGroups: [
      {
        semantics: "SIM",
        ssrcs: [2222, 2223, 2224]
      },
      {
        semantics: "FEC",
        ssrcs: [2222, 2225]



Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


      }]
    }]
   }



8.  IANA Considerations

   None.

9.  Informative References

   [CLUE]     Duckworth, M., Pepperell, A., and S. Wenger, "Framework
              for Telepresence Multi-Streams", reference.I-D.ietf-clue-
              framework (work in progress), May 2013, <reference.I-D
              .ietf-clue-framework>.

   [COIN]     Ivov, E. and E. Marocco, "XEP-0298: Delivering Conference
              Information to Jingle Participants (Coin)", XSF XEP 0298,
              June 2011, <reference.I-D.ietf-coin-framework>.

   [MAX-SSRC]
              Westerlund, M., Burman, B., and F. Jansson, "Multiple
              Synchronization sources (SSRC) in RTP Session Signaling ",
              reference.I-D.westerlund-avtcore-max-ssrc (work in
              progress), July 2012, <reference.I-D.westerlund-avtcore-
              max-ssrc>.

   [MSID]     Alvestrand, H., "Cross Session Stream Identification in
              the Session Description Protocol", reference.I-D.ietf-
              mmusic-msid (work in progress), February 2013,
              <reference.I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid>.

   [PlanA]    Roach, A. and M. Thomson, "Using SDP with Large Numbers of
              Media Flows", reference.I-D.roach-rtcweb-plan-a (work in
              progress), May 2013, <reference.I-D.roach-rtcweb-plan-a>.

   [PlanB]    Uberti, J., "Plan B: a proposal for signaling multiple
              media sources in WebRTC.", reference.I-D.uberti-rtcweb-
              plan (work in progress), May 2013, <reference.I-D.uberti-
              rtcweb-plan>.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
              2002.






Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

   [RFC4575]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and O. Levin, "A Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference
              State", RFC 4575, August 2006.

   [RFC5285]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
              Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.

   [RFC5761]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
              Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, April 2010.

   [RFC5956]  Begen, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
              the Session Description Protocol", RFC 5956, September
              2010.

   [RFC6015]  Begen, A., "RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity
              Forward Error Correction (FEC)", RFC 6015, October 2010.

   [RFC6051]  Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
              Flows", RFC 6051, November 2010.

   [ROACH-GLARELESS-ADD]
              Roach, A., "An Approach for Adding RTCWEB Media Streams
              without Glare", reference.I-D.roach-rtcweb-glareless-add
              (work in progress), May 2013, <reference.I-D.roach-rtcweb-
              glareless-add>.

   [SRCNAME]  Westerlund, M., Burman, B., and P. Sandgren, "RTCP SDES
              Item SRCNAME to Label Individual Sources ", reference.I-D
              .westerlund-avtext-rtcp-sdes-srcname (work in progress),
              October 2012, <reference.I-D.westerlund-avtext-rtcp-sdes-
              srcname>.

   [TRICKLE-ICE]
              Ivov, E., Rescorla, E., and J. Uberti, "Trickle ICE:
              Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive
              Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol ", reference.I-D
              .ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice (work in progress), March 2013,
              <reference.I-D.ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice>.

   [XCON]     , "Centralized Conferencing (XCON) Status Pages", ,
              <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/xcon/>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements




Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    No Plan: SDP O/A with Multiple SSRCs         June 2013


   Many thanks to Bernard Aboba and Mary Barnes, for reviewing this
   document and providing numerous comments and substantial input.

Authors' Addresses

   Emil Ivov
   Jitsi
   Strasbourg  67000
   France

   Phone: +33-177-624-330
   Email: emcho@jitsi.org


   Enrico Marocco
   Telecom Italia
   Via G. Reiss Romoli, 274
   Turin  10148
   Italy

   Email: enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it


   Peter Thatcher
   Google
   747 6th St S
   Kirkland, WA  98033
   USA

   Phone: +1 857 288 8888
   Email: pthatcher@google.com




















Ivov, et al.            Expires December 19, 2013              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/