Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
Network Working Group J. Uberti
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track C. Jennings
Expires: August 31, 2019 Cisco
E. Rescorla, Ed.
Mozilla
February 27, 2019
JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol
draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-26
Abstract
This document describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript
application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session
via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API, and
discusses how this relates to existing signaling protocols.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 August 31, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. General Design of JSEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Other Approaches Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Semantics and Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Signaling Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Session Descriptions and State Machine . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Session Description Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Session Description Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.1. RtpTransceivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.2. RtpSenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.3. RtpReceivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.1. ICE Gathering Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.2. ICE Candidate Trickling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.2.1. ICE Candidate Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.3. ICE Candidate Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.4. ICE Candidate Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.5. ICE Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6. Video Size Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6.1. Creating an imageattr Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6.2. Interpreting imageattr Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7. Simulcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.8. Interactions With Forking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8.1. Sequential Forking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8.2. Parallel Forking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. PeerConnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.1. Constructor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.2. addTrack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.3. removeTrack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.4. addTransceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.5. createDataChannel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.6. createOffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.7. createAnswer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.8. SessionDescriptionType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1.8.1. Use of Provisional Answers . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.8.2. Rollback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.9. setLocalDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1.10. setRemoteDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1.11. currentLocalDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1.12. pendingLocalDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1.13. currentRemoteDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
4.1.14. pendingRemoteDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.15. canTrickleIceCandidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.16. setConfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.17. addIceCandidate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2. RtpTransceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.1. stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.2. stopped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.3. setDirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.4. direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.5. currentDirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.6. setCodecPreferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. SDP Interaction Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1. Requirements Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1.1. Usage Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1.2. Profile Names and Interoperability . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2. Constructing an Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2.1. Initial Offers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2.2. Subsequent Offers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.3. Options Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2.3.1. IceRestart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2.3.2. VoiceActivityDetection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3. Generating an Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3.1. Initial Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3.2. Subsequent Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3.3. Options Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3.3.1. VoiceActivityDetection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4. Modifying an Offer or Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.5. Processing a Local Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.6. Processing a Remote Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.7. Processing a Rollback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.8. Parsing a Session Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.8.1. Session-Level Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.8.2. Media Section Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.8.3. Semantics Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.9. Applying a Local Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.10. Applying a Remote Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.11. Applying an Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6. Processing RTP/RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.1. Simple Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.2. Detailed Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.3. Early Transport Warmup Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Appendix A. Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Appendix B. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
1. Introduction
This document describes how the W3C WEBRTC RTCPeerConnection
interface [W3C.webrtc] is used to control the setup, management and
teardown of a multimedia session.
1.1. General Design of JSEP
WebRTC call setup has been designed to focus on controlling the media
plane, leaving signaling plane behavior up to the application as much
as possible. The rationale is that different applications may prefer
to use different protocols, such as the existing SIP call signaling
protocol, or something custom to the particular application, perhaps
for a novel use case. In this approach, the key information that
needs to be exchanged is the multimedia session description, which
specifies the necessary transport and media configuration information
necessary to establish the media plane.
With these considerations in mind, this document describes the
JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP) that allows for full
control of the signaling state machine from JavaScript. As described
above, JSEP assumes a model in which a JavaScript application
executes inside a runtime containing WebRTC APIs (the "JSEP
implementation"). The JSEP implementation is almost entirely
divorced from the core signaling flow, which is instead handled by
the JavaScript making use of two interfaces: (1) passing in local and
remote session descriptions and (2) interacting with the ICE state
machine. The combination of the JSEP implementation and the
JavaScript application is referred to throughout this document as a
"JSEP endpoint".
In this document, the use of JSEP is described as if it always occurs
between two JSEP endpoints. Note though in many cases it will
actually be between a JSEP endpoint and some kind of server, such as
a gateway or MCU. This distinction is invisible to the JSEP
endpoint; it just follows the instructions it is given via the API.
JSEP's handling of session descriptions is simple and
straightforward. Whenever an offer/answer exchange is needed, the
initiating side creates an offer by calling a createOffer() API. The
application then uses that offer to set up its local config via the
setLocalDescription() API. The offer is finally sent off to the
remote side over its preferred signaling mechanism (e.g.,
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
WebSockets); upon receipt of that offer, the remote party installs it
using the setRemoteDescription() API.
To complete the offer/answer exchange, the remote party uses the
createAnswer() API to generate an appropriate answer, applies it
using the setLocalDescription() API, and sends the answer back to the
initiator over the signaling channel. When the initiator gets that
answer, it installs it using the setRemoteDescription() API, and
initial setup is complete. This process can be repeated for
additional offer/answer exchanges.
Regarding ICE [RFC8445], JSEP decouples the ICE state machine from
the overall signaling state machine, as the ICE state machine must
remain in the JSEP implementation, because only the implementation
has the necessary knowledge of candidates and other transport
information. Performing this separation provides additional
flexibility in protocols that decouple session descriptions from
transport. For instance, in traditional SIP, each offer or answer is
self-contained, including both the session descriptions and the
transport information. However, [I-D.ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip]
allows SIP to be used with trickle ICE [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], in
which the session description can be sent immediately and the
transport information can be sent when available. Sending transport
information separately can allow for faster ICE and DTLS startup,
since ICE checks can start as soon as any transport information is
available rather than waiting for all of it. JSEP's decoupling of
the ICE and signaling state machines allows it to accommodate either
model.
Through its abstraction of signaling, the JSEP approach does require
the application to be aware of the signaling process. While the
application does not need to understand the contents of session
descriptions to set up a call, the application must call the right
APIs at the right times, convert the session descriptions and ICE
information into the defined messages of its chosen signaling
protocol, and perform the reverse conversion on the messages it
receives from the other side.
One way to make life easier for the application is to provide a
JavaScript library that hides this complexity from the developer;
said library would implement a given signaling protocol along with
its state machine and serialization code, presenting a higher level
call-oriented interface to the application developer. For example,
libraries exist to adapt the JSEP API into an API suitable for a SIP
or XMPP. Thus, JSEP provides greater control for the experienced
developer without forcing any additional complexity on the novice
developer.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
1.2. Other Approaches Considered
One approach that was considered instead of JSEP was to include a
lightweight signaling protocol. Instead of providing session
descriptions to the API, the API would produce and consume messages
from this protocol. While providing a more high-level API, this put
more control of signaling within the JSEP implementation, forcing it
to have to understand and handle concepts like signaling glare (see
[RFC3264], Section 4).
A second approach that was considered but not chosen was to decouple
the management of the media control objects from session
descriptions, instead offering APIs that would control each component
directly. This was rejected based on the argument that requiring
exposure of this level of complexity to the application programmer
would not be beneficial; it would result in an API where even a
simple example would require a significant amount of code to
orchestrate all the needed interactions, as well as creating a large
API surface that needed to be agreed upon and documented. In
addition, these API points could be called in any order, resulting in
a more complex set of interactions with the media subsystem than the
JSEP approach, which specifies how session descriptions are to be
evaluated and applied.
One variation on JSEP that was considered was to keep the basic
session description-oriented API, but to move the mechanism for
generating offers and answers out of the JSEP implementation.
Instead of providing createOffer/createAnswer methods within the
implementation, this approach would instead expose a getCapabilities
API which would provide the application with the information it
needed in order to generate its own session descriptions. This
increases the amount of work that the application needs to do; it
needs to know how to generate session descriptions from capabilities,
and especially how to generate the correct answer from an arbitrary
offer and the supported capabilities. While this could certainly be
addressed by using a library like the one mentioned above, it
basically forces the use of said library even for a simple example.
Providing createOffer/createAnswer avoids this problem.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
3. Semantics and Syntax
3.1. Signaling Model
JSEP does not specify a particular signaling model or state machine,
other than the generic need to exchange session descriptions in the
fashion described by [RFC3264] (offer/answer) in order for both sides
of the session to know how to conduct the session. JSEP provides
mechanisms to create offers and answers, as well as to apply them to
a session. However, the JSEP implementation is totally decoupled
from the actual mechanism by which these offers and answers are
communicated to the remote side, including addressing,
retransmission, forking, and glare handling. These issues are left
entirely up to the application; the application has complete control
over which offers and answers get handed to the implementation, and
when.
+-----------+ +-----------+
| Web App |<--- App-Specific Signaling -->| Web App |
+-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^
| SDP | SDP
V V
+-----------+ +-----------+
| JSEP |<----------- Media ------------>| JSEP |
| Impl. | | Impl. |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 1: JSEP Signaling Model
3.2. Session Descriptions and State Machine
In order to establish the media plane, the JSEP implementation needs
specific parameters to indicate what to transmit to the remote side,
as well as how to handle the media that is received. These
parameters are determined by the exchange of session descriptions in
offers and answers, and there are certain details to this process
that must be handled in the JSEP APIs.
Whether a session description applies to the local side or the remote
side affects the meaning of that description. For example, the list
of codecs sent to a remote party indicates what the local side is
willing to receive, which, when intersected with the set of codecs
the remote side supports, specifies what the remote side should send.
However, not all parameters follow this rule; some parameters are
declarative and the remote side MUST either accept them or reject
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
them altogether. An example of such a parameter is the DTLS
fingerprints [RFC8122], which are calculated based on the local
certificate(s) offered, and are not subject to negotiation.
In addition, various RFCs put different conditions on the format of
offers versus answers. For example, an offer may propose an
arbitrary number of m= sections (i.e., media descriptions as
described in [RFC4566], Section 5.14), but an answer must contain the
exact same number as the offer.
Lastly, while the exact media parameters are only known only after an
offer and an answer have been exchanged, the offerer may receive ICE
checks, and possibly media (e.g., in the case of a re-offer after a
connection has been established) before it receives an answer. To
properly process incoming media in this case, the offerer's media
handler must be aware of the details of the offer before the answer
arrives.
Therefore, in order to handle session descriptions properly, the JSEP
implementation needs:
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.
JSEP addresses this by adding both setLocalDescription and
setRemoteDescription methods and having session description objects
contain a type field indicating the type of session description being
supplied. This satisfies the requirements listed above for both the
offerer, who first calls setLocalDescription(sdp [offer]) and then
later setRemoteDescription(sdp [answer]), as well as for the
answerer, who first calls setRemoteDescription(sdp [offer]) and then
later setLocalDescription(sdp [answer]).
During the offer/answer exchange, the outstanding offer is considered
to be "pending" at the offerer and the answerer, as it may either be
accepted or rejected. If this is a re-offer, each side will also
have "current" local and remote descriptions, which reflect the
result of the last offer/answer exchange. Sections Section 4.1.12,
Section 4.1.14, Section 4.1.11, and Section 4.1.13, provide more
detail on pending and current descriptions.
JSEP also allows for an answer to be treated as provisional by the
application. Provisional answers provide a way for an answerer to
communicate initial session parameters back to the offerer, in order
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
to allow the session to begin, while allowing a final answer to be
specified later. This concept of a final answer is important to the
offer/answer model; when such an answer is received, any extra
resources allocated by the caller can be released, now that the exact
session configuration is known. These "resources" can include things
like extra ICE components, TURN candidates, or video decoders.
Provisional answers, on the other hand, do no such deallocation; as a
result, multiple dissimilar provisional answers, with their own codec
choices, transport parameters, etc., can be received and applied
during call setup. Note that the final answer itself may be
different than any received provisional answers.
In [RFC3264], the constraint at the signaling level is that only one
offer can be outstanding for a given session, but at the media stack
level, a new offer can be generated at any point. For example, when
using SIP for signaling, if one offer is sent, then cancelled using a
SIP CANCEL, another offer can be generated even though no answer was
received for the first offer. To support this, the JSEP media layer
can provide an offer via the createOffer() method whenever the
JavaScript application needs one for the signaling. The answerer can
send back zero or more provisional answers, and finally end the
offer-answer exchange by sending a final answer. The state machine
for this is as follows:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
setRemote(OFFER) setLocal(PRANSWER)
/-----\ /-----\
| | | |
v | v |
+---------------+ | +---------------+ |
| |----/ | |----/
| have- | setLocal(PRANSWER) | have- |
| remote-offer |------------------- >| local-pranswer|
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
^ | |
| | setLocal(ANSWER) |
setRemote(OFFER) | |
| V setLocal(ANSWER) |
+---------------+ |
| | |
| |<---------------------------+
| stable |
| |<---------------------------+
| | |
+---------------+ setRemote(ANSWER) |
^ | |
| | setLocal(OFFER) |
setRemote(ANSWER) | |
| V |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| | | |
| have- | setRemote(PRANSWER) |have- |
| local-offer |------------------- >|remote-pranswer|
| | | |
| |----\ | |----\
+---------------+ | +---------------+ |
^ | ^ |
| | | |
\-----/ \-----/
setLocal(OFFER) setRemote(PRANSWER)
Figure 2: JSEP State Machine
Aside from these state transitions there is no other difference
between the handling of provisional ("pranswer") and final ("answer")
answers.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
3.3. Session Description Format
JSEP's session descriptions use SDP syntax for their internal
representation. While this format is not optimal for manipulation
from JavaScript, it is widely accepted, and frequently updated with
new features; any alternate encoding of session descriptions would
have to keep pace with the changes to SDP, at least until the time
that this new encoding eclipsed SDP in popularity.
However, to provide for future flexibility, the SDP syntax is
encapsulated within a SessionDescription object, which can be
constructed from SDP, and be serialized out to SDP. If future
specifications agree on a JSON format for session descriptions, we
could easily enable this object to generate and consume that JSON.
As detailed below, most applications should be able to treat the
SessionDescriptions produced and consumed by these various API calls
as opaque blobs; that is, the application will not need to read or
change them.
3.4. Session Description Control
In order to give the application control over various common session
parameters, JSEP provides control surfaces which tell the JSEP
implementation how to generate session descriptions. This avoids the
need for JavaScript to modify session descriptions in most cases.
Changes to these objects result in changes to the session
descriptions generated by subsequent createOffer/Answer calls.
3.4.1. RtpTransceivers
RtpTransceivers allow the application to control the RTP media
associated with one m= section. Each RtpTransceiver has an RtpSender
and an RtpReceiver, which an application can use to control the
sending and receiving of RTP media. The application may also modify
the RtpTransceiver directly, for instance, by stopping it.
RtpTransceivers generally have a 1:1 mapping with m= sections,
although there may be more RtpTransceivers than m= sections when
RtpTransceivers are created but not yet associated with a m= section,
or if RtpTransceivers have been stopped and disassociated from m=
sections. An RtpTransceiver is said to be associated with an m=
section if its mid property is non-null; otherwise it is said to be
disassociated. The associated m= section is determined using a
mapping between transceivers and m= section indices, formed when
creating an offer or applying a remote offer.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
An RtpTransceiver is never associated with more than one m= section,
and once a session description is applied, a m= section is always
associated with exactly one RtpTransceiver. However, in certain
cases where a m= section has been rejected, as discussed in
Section 5.2.2 below, that m= section will be "recycled" and
associated with a new RtpTransceiver with a new mid value.
RtpTransceivers can be created explicitly by the application or
implicitly by calling setRemoteDescription with an offer that adds
new m= sections.
3.4.2. RtpSenders
RtpSenders allow the application to control how RTP media is sent.
An RtpSender is conceptually responsible for the outgoing RTP
stream(s) described by an m= section. This includes encoding the
attached MediaStreamTrack, sending RTP media packets, and generating/
processing RTCP for the outgoing RTP streams(s).
3.4.3. RtpReceivers
RtpReceivers allow the application to inspect how RTP media is
received. An RtpReceiver is conceptually responsible for the
incoming RTP stream(s) described by an m= section. This includes
processing received RTP media packets, decoding the incoming
stream(s) to produce a remote MediaStreamTrack, and generating/
processing RTCP for the incoming RTP stream(s).
3.5. ICE
3.5.1. ICE Gathering Overview
JSEP gathers ICE candidates as needed by the application. Collection
of ICE candidates is referred to as a gathering phase, and this is
triggered either by the addition of a new or recycled m= section to
the local session description, or new ICE credentials in the
description, indicating an ICE restart. Use of new ICE credentials
can be triggered explicitly by the application, or implicitly by the
JSEP implementation in response to changes in the ICE configuration.
When the ICE configuration changes in a way that requires a new
gathering phase, a 'needs-ice-restart' bit is set. When this bit is
set, calls to the createOffer API will generate new ICE credentials.
This bit is cleared by a call to the setLocalDescription API with new
ICE credentials from either an offer or an answer, i.e., from either
a local- or remote-initiated ICE restart.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
When a new gathering phase starts, the ICE agent will notify the
application that gathering is occurring through an event. Then, when
each new ICE candidate becomes available, the ICE agent will supply
it to the application via an additional event; these candidates will
also automatically be added to the current and/or pending local
session description. Finally, when all candidates have been
gathered, an event will be dispatched to signal that the gathering
process is complete.
Note that gathering phases only gather the candidates needed by
new/recycled/restarting m= sections; other m= sections continue to
use their existing candidates. Also, if an m= section is bundled
(either by a successful bundle negotiation or by being marked as
bundle-only), then candidates will be gathered and exchanged for that
m= section if and only if its MID is a BUNDLE-tag, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].
3.5.2. ICE Candidate Trickling
Candidate trickling is a technique through which a caller may
incrementally provide candidates to the callee after the initial
offer has been dispatched; the semantics of "Trickle ICE" are defined
in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle]. This process allows the callee to begin
acting upon the call and setting up the ICE (and perhaps DTLS)
connections immediately, without having to wait for the caller to
gather all possible candidates. This results in faster media setup
in cases where gathering is not performed prior to initiating the
call.
JSEP supports optional candidate trickling by providing APIs, as
described above, that provide control and feedback on the ICE
candidate gathering process. Applications that support candidate
trickling can send the initial offer immediately and send individual
candidates when they get the notified of a new candidate;
applications that do not support this feature can simply wait for the
indication that gathering is complete, and then create and send their
offer, with all the candidates, at this time.
Upon receipt of trickled candidates, the receiving application will
supply them to its ICE agent. This triggers the ICE agent to start
using the new remote candidates for connectivity checks.
3.5.2.1. ICE Candidate Format
In JSEP, ICE candidates are abstracted by an IceCandidate object, and
as with session descriptions, SDP syntax is used for the internal
representation.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
The candidate details are specified in an IceCandidate field, using
the same SDP syntax as the "candidate-attribute" field defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.1. Note that this field
does not contain an "a=" prefix, as indicated in the following
example:
candidate:1 1 UDP 1694498815 192.0.2.33 10000 typ host
The IceCandidate object contains a field to indicate which ICE ufrag
it is associated with, as defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp],
Section 4.4. This value is used to determine which session
description (and thereby which gathering phase) this IceCandidate
belongs to, which helps resolve ambiguities during ICE restarts. If
this field is absent in a received IceCandidate (perhaps when
communicating with a non-JSEP endpoint), the most recently received
session description is assumed.
The IceCandidate object also contains fields to indicate which m=
section it is associated with, which can be identified in one of two
ways, either by a m= section index, or a MID. The m= section index
is a zero-based index, with index N referring to the N+1th m= section
in the session description referenced by this IceCandidate. The MID
is a "media stream identification" value, as defined in [RFC5888],
Section 4, which provides a more robust way to identify the m=
section in the session description, using the MID of the associated
RtpTransceiver object (which may have been locally generated by the
answerer when interacting with a non-JSEP endpoint that does not
support the MID attribute, as discussed in Section 5.10 below). If
the MID field is present in a received IceCandidate, it MUST be used
for identification; otherwise, the m= section index is used instead.
When creating an IceCandidate object, JSEP implementations MUST
populate each of the candidate, ufrag, m= section index, and MID
fields. Implementations MUST also be prepared to receive objects
with some fields missing, as mentioned above.
3.5.3. ICE Candidate Policy
Typically, when gathering ICE candidates, the JSEP implementation
will gather all possible forms of initial candidates - host, server
reflexive, and relay. However, in certain cases, applications may
want to have more specific control over the gathering process, due to
privacy or related concerns. For example, one may want to only use
relay candidates, to leak as little location information as possible
(keeping in mind that this choice comes with corresponding
operational costs). To accomplish this, JSEP allows the application
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
to restrict which ICE candidates are used in a session. Note that
this filtering is applied on top of any restrictions the
implementation chooses to enforce regarding which IP addresses are
permitted for the application, as discussed in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling].
There may also be cases where the application wants to change which
types of candidates are used while the session is active. A prime
example is where a callee may initially want to use only relay
candidates, to avoid leaking location information to an arbitrary
caller, but then change to use all candidates (for lower operational
cost) once the user has indicated they want to take the call. For
this scenario, the JSEP implementation MUST allow the candidate
policy to be changed in mid-session, subject to the aforementioned
interactions with local policy.
To administer the ICE candidate policy, the JSEP implementation will
determine the current setting at the start of each gathering phase.
Then, during the gathering phase, the implementation MUST NOT expose
candidates disallowed by the current policy to the application, use
them as the source of connectivity checks, or indirectly expose them
via other fields, such as the raddr/rport attributes for other ICE
candidates. Later, if a different policy is specified by the
application, the application can apply it by kicking off a new
gathering phase via an ICE restart.
3.5.4. ICE Candidate Pool
JSEP applications typically inform the JSEP implementation to begin
ICE gathering via the information supplied to setLocalDescription, as
the local description indicates the number of ICE components which
will be needed and for which candidates must be gathered. However,
to accelerate cases where the application knows the number of ICE
components to use ahead of time, it may ask the implementation to
gather a pool of potential ICE candidates to help ensure rapid media
setup.
When setLocalDescription is eventually called, and the JSEP
implementation goes to gather the needed ICE candidates, it SHOULD
start by checking if any candidates are available in the pool. If
there are candidates in the pool, they SHOULD be handed to the
application immediately via the ICE candidate event. If the pool
becomes depleted, either because a larger-than-expected number of ICE
components is used, or because the pool has not had enough time to
gather candidates, the remaining candidates are gathered as usual.
This only occurs for the first offer/answer exchange, after which the
candidate pool is emptied and no longer used.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
One example of where this concept is useful is an application that
expects an incoming call at some point in the future, and wants to
minimize the time it takes to establish connectivity, to avoid
clipping of initial media. By pre-gathering candidates into the
pool, it can exchange and start sending connectivity checks from
these candidates almost immediately upon receipt of a call. Note
though that by holding on to these pre-gathered candidates, which
will be kept alive as long as they may be needed, the application
will consume resources on the STUN/TURN servers it is using.
3.5.5. ICE Versions
While this specification formally relies on [RFC8445], at the time of
its publication, the majority of WebRTC implementations support the
version of ICE described in [RFC5245]. The use of the "ice2"
attribute defined in [RFC8445] can be used to detect the version in
use by a remote endpoint and to provide a smooth transition from the
older specification to the newer one. Implementations MUST be able
to accept remote descriptions that do not have the "ice2" attribute.
3.6. Video Size Negotiation
Video size negotiation is the process through which a receiver can
use the "a=imageattr" SDP attribute [RFC6236] to indicate what video
frame sizes it is capable of receiving. A receiver may have hard
limits on what its video decoder can process, or it may have some
maximum set by policy. By specifying these limits in an
"a=imageattr" attribute, JSEP endpoints can attempt to ensure that
the remote sender transmits video at an acceptable resolution.
However, when communicating with a non-JSEP endpoint that does not
understand this attribute, any signaled limits may be exceeded, and
the JSEP implementation MUST handle this gracefully, e.g., by
discarding the video.
Note that certain codecs support transmission of samples with aspect
ratios other than 1.0 (i.e., non-square pixels). JSEP
implementations will not transmit non-square pixels, but SHOULD
receive and render such video with the correct aspect ratio.
However, sample aspect ratio has no impact on the size negotiation
described below; all dimensions are measured in pixels, whether
square or not.
3.6.1. Creating an imageattr Attribute
The receiver will first intersect any known local limits (e.g.,
hardware decoder capababilities, local policy) to determine the
absolute minimum and maximum sizes it can receive. If there are no
known local limits, the "a=imageattr" attribute SHOULD be omitted.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
If these local limits preclude receiving any video, i.e., the
degenerate case of no permitted resolutions, the "a=imageattr"
attribute MUST be omitted, and the m= section MUST be marked as
sendonly/inactive, as appropriate.
Otherwise, an "a=imageattr" attribute is created with "recv"
direction, and the resulting resolution space formed from the
aforementioned intersection is used to specify its minimum and
maximum x= and y= values.
The rules here express a single set of preferences, and therefore,
the "a=imageattr" q= value is not important. It SHOULD be set to
1.0.
The "a=imageattr" field is payload type specific. When all video
codecs supported have the same capabilities, use of a single
attribute, with the wildcard payload type (*), is RECOMMENDED.
However, when the supported video codecs have different limitations,
specific "a=imageattr" attributes MUST be inserted for each payload
type.
As an example, consider a system with a multiformat video decoder,
which is capable of decoding any resolution from 48x48 to 720p, In
this case, the implementation would generate this attribute:
a=imageattr:* recv [x=[48:1280],y=[48:720],q=1.0]
This declaration indicates that the receiver is capable of decoding
any image resolution from 48x48 up to 1280x720 pixels.
3.6.2. Interpreting imageattr Attributes
[RFC6236] defines "a=imageattr" to be an advisory field. This means
that it does not absolutely constrain the video formats that the
sender can use, but gives an indication of the preferred values.
This specification prescribes more specific behavior. When a
MediaStreamTrack, which is producing video of a certain resolution
(the "track resolution"), is attached to a RtpSender, which is
encoding the track video at the same or lower resolution(s) (the
"encoder resolutions"), and a remote description is applied that
references the sender and contains valid "a=imageattr recv"
attributes, it MUST follow the rules below to ensure the sender does
not transmit a resolution that would exceed the size criteria
specified in the attributes. These rules MUST be followed as long as
the attributes remain present in the remote description, including
cases in which the track changes its resolution, or is replaced with
a different track.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Depending on how the RtpSender is configured, it may be producing a
single encoding at a certain resolution, or, if simulcast Section 3.7
has been negotiated, multiple encodings, each at their own specific
resolution. In addition, depending on the configuration, each
encoding may have the flexibility to reduce resolution when needed,
or may be locked to a specific output resolution.
For each encoding being produced by the RtpSender, the set of
"a=imageattr recv" attributes in the corresponding m= section of the
remote description is processed to determine what should be
transmitted. Only attributes that reference the media format
selected for the encoding are considered; each such attribute is
evaluated individually, starting with the attribute with the highest
"q=" value. If multiple attributes have the same "q=" value, they
are evaluated in the order they appear in their containing m=
section. Note that while JSEP endpoints will include at most one
"a=imageattr recv" attribute per media format, JSEP endpoints may
receive session descriptions from non-JSEP endpoints with m= sections
that contain multiple such attributes.
For each "a=imageattr recv" attribute, the following rules are
applied. If this processing is successful, the encoding is
transmitted accordingly, and no further attributes are considered for
that encoding. Otherwise, the next attribute is evaluated, in the
aforementioned order. If none of the supplied attributes can be
processed successfully, the encoding MUST NOT be transmitted, and an
error SHOULD be raised to the application.
o The limits from the attribute are compared to the encoder
resolution. Only the specific limits mentioned below are
considered; any other values, such as picture aspect ratio, MUST
be ignored. When considering a MediaStreamTrack that is producing
rotated video, the unrotated resolution MUST be used for the
checks. This is required regardless of whether the receiver
supports performing receive-side rotation (e.g., through CVO
[TS26.114]), as it significantly simplifies the matching logic.
o If the attribute includes a "sar=" (sample aspect ratio) value set
to something other than "1.0", indicating the receiver wants to
receive non-square pixels, this cannot be satisfied and the
attribute MUST NOT be used.
o If the encoder resolution exceeds the maximum size permitted by
the attribute, and the encoder is allowed to adjust its
resolution, the encoder SHOULD apply downscaling in order to
satisfy the limits. Downscaling MUST NOT change the picture
aspect ratio of the encoding, ignoring any trivial differences due
to rounding. For example, if the encoder resolution is 1280x720,
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
and the attribute specified a maximum of 640x480, the expected
output resolution would be 640x360. If downscaling cannot be
applied, the attribute MUST NOT be used.
o If the encoder resolution is less than the minimum size permitted
by the attribute, the attribute MUST NOT be used; the encoder MUST
NOT apply upscaling. JSEP implementations SHOULD avoid this
situation by allowing receipt of arbitrarily small resolutions,
perhaps via fallback to a software decoder.
o If the encoder resolution is within the maximum and minimum sizes,
no action is needed.
3.7. Simulcast
JSEP supports simulcast transmission of a MediaStreamTrack, where
multiple encodings of the source media can be transmitted within the
context of a single m= section. The current JSEP API is designed to
allow applications to send simulcasted media but only to receive a
single encoding. This allows for multi-user scenarios where each
sending client sends multiple encodings to a server, which then, for
each receiving client, chooses the appropriate encoding to forward.
Applications request support for simulcast by configuring multiple
encodings on an RtpSender. Upon generation of an offer or answer,
these encodings are indicated via SDP markings on the corresponding
m= section, as described below. Receivers that understand simulcast
and are willing to receive it will also include SDP markings to
indicate their support, and JSEP endpoints will use these markings to
determine whether simulcast is permitted for a given RtpSender. If
simulcast support is not negotiated, the RtpSender will only use the
first configured encoding.
Note that the exact simulcast parameters are up to the sending
application. While the aforementioned SDP markings are provided to
ensure the remote side can receive and demux multiple simulcast
encodings, the specific resolutions and bitrates to be used for each
encoding are purely a send-side decision in JSEP.
JSEP currently does not provide a mechanism to configure receipt of
simulcast. This means that if simulcast is offered by the remote
endpoint, the answer generated by a JSEP endpoint will not indicate
support for receipt of simulcast, and as such the remote endpoint
will only send a single encoding per m= section.
In addition, JSEP does not provide a mechanism to handle an incoming
offer requesting simulcast from the JSEP endpoint. This means that
setting up simulcast in the case where the JSEP endpoint receives the
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
initial offer requires out-of-band signaling or SDP inspection.
However, in the case where the JSEP endpoint sets up simulcast in its
in initial offer, any established simulcast streams will continue to
work upon receipt of an incoming re-offer. Future versions of this
specification may add additional APIs to handle the incoming initial
offer scenario.
When using JSEP to transmit multiple encodings from a RtpSender, the
techniques from [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast] and
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] are used. Specifically, when multiple
encodings have been configured for a RtpSender, the m= section for
the RtpSender will include an "a=simulcast" attribute, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast], Section 6.2, with a "send" simulcast
stream description that lists each desired encoding, and no "recv"
simulcast stream description. The m= section will also include an
"a=rid" attribute for each encoding, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid], Section 4; the use of RID identifiers allows
the individual encodings to be disambiguated even though they are all
part of the same m= section.
3.8. Interactions With Forking
Some call signaling systems allow various types of forking where an
SDP Offer may be provided to more than one device. For example, SIP
[RFC3261] defines both a "Parallel Search" and "Sequential Search".
Although these are primarily signaling level issues that are outside
the scope of JSEP, they do have some impact on the configuration of
the media plane that is relevant. When forking happens at the
signaling layer, the JavaScript application responsible for the
signaling needs to make the decisions about what media should be sent
or received at any point of time, as well as which remote endpoint it
should communicate with; JSEP is used to make sure the media engine
can make the RTP and media perform as required by the application.
The basic operations that the applications can have the media engine
do are:
o Start exchanging media with a given remote peer, but keep all the
resources reserved in the offer.
o Start exchanging media with a given remote peer, and free any
resources in the offer that are not being used.
3.8.1. Sequential Forking
Sequential forking involves a call being dispatched to multiple
remote callees, where each callee can accept the call, but only one
active session ever exists at a time; no mixing of received media is
performed.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
JSEP handles sequential forking well, allowing the application to
easily control the policy for selecting the desired remote endpoint.
When an answer arrives from one of the callees, the application can
choose to apply it either as a provisional answer, leaving open the
possibility of using a different answer in the future, or apply it as
a final answer, ending the setup flow.
In a "first-one-wins" situation, the first answer will be applied as
a final answer, and the application will reject any subsequent
answers. In SIP parlance, this would be ACK + BYE.
In a "last-one-wins" situation, all answers would be applied as
provisional answers, and any previous call leg will be terminated.
At some point, the application will end the setup process, perhaps
with a timer; at this point, the application could reapply the
pending remote description as a final answer.
3.8.2. Parallel Forking
Parallel forking involves a call being dispatched to multiple remote
callees, where each callee can accept the call, and multiple
simultaneous active signaling sessions can be established as a
result. If multiple callees send media at the same time, the
possibilities for handling this are described in [RFC3960],
Section 3.1. Most SIP devices today only support exchanging media
with a single device at a time, and do not try to mix multiple early
media audio sources, as that could result in a confusing situation.
For example, consider having a European ringback tone mixed together
with the North American ringback tone - the resulting sound would not
be like either tone, and would confuse the user. If the signaling
application wishes to only exchange media with one of the remote
endpoints at a time, then from a media engine point of view, this is
exactly like the sequential forking case.
In the parallel forking case where the JavaScript application wishes
to simultaneously exchange media with multiple peers, the flow is
slightly more complex, but the JavaScript application can follow the
strategy that [RFC3960] describes using UPDATE. The UPDATE approach
allows the signaling to set up a separate media flow for each peer
that it wishes to exchange media with. In JSEP, this offer used in
the UPDATE would be formed by simply creating a new PeerConnection
(see Section 4.1) and making sure that the same local media streams
have been added into this new PeerConnection. Then the new
PeerConnection object would produce a SDP offer that could be used by
the signaling to perform the UPDATE strategy discussed in [RFC3960].
As a result of sharing the media streams, the application will end up
with N parallel PeerConnection sessions, each with a local and remote
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
description and their own local and remote addresses. The media flow
from these sessions can be managed using setDirection (see
Section 4.2.3), or the application can choose to play out the media
from all sessions mixed together. Of course, if the application
wants to only keep a single session, it can simply terminate the
sessions that it no longer needs.
4. Interface
This section details the basic operations that must be present to
implement JSEP functionality. The actual API exposed in the W3C API
may have somewhat different syntax, but should map easily to these
concepts.
4.1. PeerConnection
4.1.1. Constructor
The PeerConnection constructor allows the application to specify
global parameters for the media session, such as the STUN/TURN
servers and credentials to use when gathering candidates, as well as
the initial ICE candidate policy and pool size, and also the bundle
policy to use.
If an ICE candidate policy is specified, it functions as described in
Section 3.5.3, causing the JSEP implementation to only surface the
permitted candidates (including any implementation-internal
filtering) to the application, and only use those candidates for
connectivity checks. The set of available policies is as follows:
all: All candidates permitted by implementation policy will be
gathered and used.
relay: All candidates except relay candidates will be filtered out.
This obfuscates the location information that might be ascertained
by the remote peer from the received candidates. Depending on how
the application deploys and chooses relay servers, this could
obfuscate location to a metro or possibly even global level.
The default ICE candidate policy MUST be set to "all" as this is
generally the desired policy, and also typically reduces use of
application TURN server resources significantly.
If a size is specified for the ICE candidate pool, this indicates the
number of ICE components to pre-gather candidates for. Because pre-
gathering results in utilizing STUN/TURN server resources for
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
potentially long periods of time, this must only occur upon
application request, and therefore the default candidate pool size
MUST be zero.
The application can specify its preferred policy regarding use of
bundle, the multiplexing mechanism defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. Regardless of policy, the
application will always try to negotiate bundle onto a single
transport, and will offer a single bundle group across all m=
sections; use of this single transport is contingent upon the
answerer accepting bundle. However, by specifying a policy from the
list below, the application can control exactly how aggressively it
will try to bundle media streams together, which affects how it will
interoperate with a non-bundle-aware endpoint. When negotiating with
a non-bundle-aware endpoint, only the streams not marked as bundle-
only streams will be established.
The set of available policies is as follows:
balanced: The first m= section of each type (audio, video, or
application) will contain transport parameters, which will allow
an answerer to unbundle that section. The second and any
subsequent m= section of each type will be marked bundle-only.
The result is that if there are N distinct media types, then
candidates will be gathered for for N media streams. This policy
balances desire to multiplex with the need to ensure basic audio
and video can still be negotiated in legacy cases. When acting as
answerer, if there is no bundle group in the offer, the
implementation will reject all but the first m= section of each
type.
max-compat: All m= sections will contain transport parameters; none
will be marked as bundle-only. This policy will allow all streams
to be received by non-bundle-aware endpoints, but require separate
candidates to be gathered for each media stream.
max-bundle: Only the first m= section will contain transport
parameters; all streams other than the first will be marked as
bundle-only. This policy aims to minimize candidate gathering and
maximize multiplexing, at the cost of less compatibility with
legacy endpoints. When acting as answerer, the implementation
will reject any m= sections other than the first m= section,
unless they are in the same bundle group as that m= section.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
As it provides the best tradeoff between performance and
compatibility with legacy endpoints, the default bundle policy MUST
be set to "balanced".
The application can specify its preferred policy regarding use of
RTP/RTCP multiplexing [RFC5761] using one of the following policies:
negotiate: The JSEP implementation will gather both RTP and RTCP
candidates but also will offer "a=rtcp-mux", thus allowing for
compatibility with either multiplexing or non-multiplexing
endpoints.
require: The JSEP implementation will only gather RTP candidates and
will insert an "a=rtcp-mux-only" indication into any new m=
sections in offers it generates. This halves the number of
candidates that the offerer needs to gather. Applying a
description with an m= section that does not contain an "a=rtcp-
mux" attribute will cause an error to be returned.
The default multiplexing policy MUST be set to "require".
Implementations MAY choose to reject attempts by the application to
set the multiplexing policy to "negotiate".
4.1.2. addTrack
The addTrack method adds a MediaStreamTrack to the PeerConnection,
using the MediaStream argument to associate the track with other
tracks in the same MediaStream, so that they can be added to the same
"LS" group when creating an offer or answer. Adding tracks to the
same "LS" group indicates that the playback of these tracks should be
synchronized for proper lip sync, as described in [RFC5888],
Section 7. addTrack attempts to minimize the number of transceivers
as follows: If the PeerConnection is in the "have-remote-offer"
state, the track will be attached to the first compatible transceiver
that was created by the most recent call to setRemoteDescription()
and does not have a local track. Otherwise, a new transceiver will
be created, as described in Section 4.1.4.
4.1.3. removeTrack
The removeTrack method removes a MediaStreamTrack from the
PeerConnection, using the RtpSender argument to indicate which sender
should have its track removed. The sender's track is cleared, and
the sender stops sending. Future calls to createOffer will mark the
m= section associated with the sender as recvonly (if
transceiver.direction is sendrecv) or as inactive (if
transceiver.direction is sendonly).
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
4.1.4. addTransceiver
The addTransceiver method adds a new RtpTransceiver to the
PeerConnection. If a MediaStreamTrack argument is provided, then the
transceiver will be configured with that media type and the track
will be attached to the transceiver. Otherwise, the application MUST
explicitly specify the type; this mode is useful for creating
recvonly transceivers as well as for creating transceivers to which a
track can be attached at some later point.
At the time of creation, the application can also specify a
transceiver direction attribute, a set of MediaStreams which the
transceiver is associated with (allowing LS group assignments), and a
set of encodings for the media (used for simulcast as described in
Section 3.7).
4.1.5. createDataChannel
The createDataChannel method creates a new data channel and attaches
it to the PeerConnection. If no data channel currently exists for
this PeerConnection, then a new offer/answer exchange is required.
All data channels on a given PeerConnection share the same SCTP/DTLS
association and therefore the same m= section, so subsequent creation
of data channels does not have any impact on the JSEP state.
The createDataChannel method also includes a number of arguments
which are used by the PeerConnection (e.g., maxPacketLifetime) but
are not reflected in the SDP and do not affect the JSEP state.
4.1.6. createOffer
The createOffer method generates a blob of SDP that contains a
[RFC3264] offer with the supported configurations for the session,
including descriptions of the media added to this PeerConnection, the
codec/RTP/RTCP options supported by this implementation, and any
candidates that have been gathered by the ICE agent. An options
parameter may be supplied to provide additional control over the
generated offer. This options parameter allows an application to
trigger an ICE restart, for the purpose of reestablishing
connectivity.
In the initial offer, the generated SDP will contain all desired
functionality for the session (functionality that is supported but
not desired by default may be omitted); for each SDP line, the
generation of the SDP will follow the process defined for generating
an initial offer from the document that specifies the given SDP line.
The exact handling of initial offer generation is detailed in
Section 5.2.1 below.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
In the event createOffer is called after the session is established,
createOffer will generate an offer to modify the current session
based on any changes that have been made to the session, e.g., adding
or stopping RtpTransceivers, or requesting an ICE restart. For each
existing stream, the generation of each SDP line must follow the
process defined for generating an updated offer from the RFC that
specifies the given SDP line. For each new stream, the generation of
the SDP must follow the process of generating an initial offer, as
mentioned above. If no changes have been made, or for SDP lines that
are unaffected by the requested changes, the offer will only contain
the parameters negotiated by the last offer-answer exchange. The
exact handling of subsequent offer generation is detailed in
Section 5.2.2. below.
Session descriptions generated by createOffer must be immediately
usable by setLocalDescription; if a system has limited resources
(e.g. a finite number of decoders), createOffer should return an
offer that reflects the current state of the system, so that
setLocalDescription will succeed when it attempts to acquire those
resources.
Calling this method may do things such as generating new ICE
credentials, but does not change the PeerConnection state, trigger
candidate gathering, or cause media to start or stop flowing.
Specifically, the offer is not applied, and does not become the
pending local description, until setLocalDescription is called.
4.1.7. createAnswer
The createAnswer method generates a blob of SDP that contains a
[RFC3264] SDP answer with the supported configuration for the session
that is compatible with the parameters supplied in the most recent
call to setRemoteDescription, which MUST have been called prior to
calling createAnswer. Like createOffer, the returned blob contains
descriptions of the media added to this PeerConnection, the
codec/RTP/RTCP options negotiated for this session, and any
candidates that have been gathered by the ICE agent. An options
parameter may be supplied to provide additional control over the
generated answer.
As an answer, the generated SDP will contain a specific configuration
that specifies how the media plane should be established; for each
SDP line, the generation of the SDP must follow the process defined
for generating an answer from the document that specifies the given
SDP line. The exact handling of answer generation is detailed in
Section 5.3. below.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Session descriptions generated by createAnswer must be immediately
usable by setLocalDescription; like createOffer, the returned
description should reflect the current state of the system.
Calling this method may do things such as generating new ICE
credentials, but does not change the PeerConnection state, trigger
candidate gathering, or or cause a media state change. Specifically,
the answer is not applied, and does not become the current local
description, until setLocalDescription is called.
4.1.8. SessionDescriptionType
Session description objects (RTCSessionDescription) may be of type
"offer", "pranswer", "answer" or "rollback". These types provide
information as to how the description parameter should be parsed, and
how the media state should be changed.
"offer" indicates that a description should be parsed as an offer;
said description may include many possible media configurations. A
description used as an "offer" may be applied anytime the
PeerConnection is in a stable state, or as an update to a previously
supplied but unanswered "offer".
"pranswer" indicates that a description should be parsed as an
answer, but not a final answer, and so should not result in the
freeing of allocated resources. It may result in the start of media
transmission, if the answer does not specify an inactive media
direction. A description used as a "pranswer" may be applied as a
response to an "offer", or an update to a previously sent "pranswer".
"answer" indicates that a description should be parsed as an answer,
the offer-answer exchange should be considered complete, and any
resources (decoders, candidates) that are no longer needed can be
released. A description used as an "answer" may be applied as a
response to an "offer", or an update to a previously sent "pranswer".
The only difference between a provisional and final answer is that
the final answer results in the freeing of any unused resources that
were allocated as a result of the offer. As such, the application
can use some discretion on whether an answer should be applied as
provisional or final, and can change the type of the session
description as needed. For example, in a serial forking scenario, an
application may receive multiple "final" answers, one from each
remote endpoint. The application could choose to accept the initial
answers as provisional answers, and only apply an answer as final
when it receives one that meets its criteria (e.g. a live user
instead of voicemail).
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
"rollback" is a special session description type implying that the
state machine should be rolled back to the previous stable state, as
described in Section 4.1.8.2. The contents MUST be empty.
4.1.8.1. Use of Provisional Answers
Most applications will not need to create answers using the
"pranswer" type. While it is good practice to send an immediate
response to an offer, in order to warm up the session transport and
prevent media clipping, the preferred handling for a JSEP application
is to create and send a "sendonly" final answer with a null
MediaStreamTrack immediately after receiving the offer, which will
prevent media from being sent by the caller, and allow media to be
sent immediately upon answer by the callee. Later, when the callee
actually accepts the call, the application can plug in the real
MediaStreamTrack and create a new "sendrecv" offer to update the
previous offer/answer pair and start bidirectional media flow. While
this could also be done with a "sendonly" pranswer, followed by a
"sendrecv" answer, the initial pranswer leaves the offer-answer
exchange open, which means that the caller cannot send an updated
offer during this time.
As an example, consider a typical JSEP application that wants to set
up audio and video as quickly as possible. When the callee receives
an offer with audio and video MediaStreamTracks, it will send an
immediate answer accepting these tracks as sendonly (meaning that the
caller will not send the callee any media yet, and because the callee
has not yet added its own MediaStreamTracks, the callee will not send
any media either). It will then ask the user to accept the call and
acquire the needed local tracks. Upon acceptance by the user, the
application will plug in the tracks it has acquired, which, because
ICE and DTLS handshaking have likely completed by this point, can
start transmitting immediately. The application will also send a new
offer to the remote side indicating call acceptance and moving the
audio and video to be two-way media. A detailed example flow along
these lines is shown in Section 7.3.
Of course, some applications may not be able to perform this double
offer-answer exchange, particularly ones that are attempting to
gateway to legacy signaling protocols. In these cases, pranswer can
still provide the application with a mechanism to warm up the
transport.
4.1.8.2. Rollback
In certain situations it may be desirable to "undo" a change made to
setLocalDescription or setRemoteDescription. Consider a case where a
call is ongoing, and one side wants to change some of the session
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
parameters; that side generates an updated offer and then calls
setLocalDescription. However, the remote side, either before or
after setRemoteDescription, decides it does not want to accept the
new parameters, and sends a reject message back to the offerer. Now,
the offerer, and possibly the answerer as well, need to return to a
stable state and the previous local/remote description. To support
this, we introduce the concept of "rollback", which discards any
proposed changes to the session, returning the state machine to the
stable state. A rollback is performed by supplying a session
description of type "rollback" with empty contents to either
setLocalDescription or setRemoteDescription.
4.1.9. setLocalDescription
The setLocalDescription method instructs the PeerConnection to apply
the supplied session description as its local configuration. The
type field indicates whether the description should be processed as
an offer, provisional answer, final answer, or rollback; offers and
answers are checked differently, using the various rules that exist
for each SDP line.
This API changes the local media state; among other things, it sets
up local resources for receiving and decoding media. In order to
successfully handle scenarios where the application wants to offer to
change from one media format to a different, incompatible format, the
PeerConnection must be able to simultaneously support use of both the
current and pending local descriptions (e.g., support the codecs that
exist in either description). This dual processing begins when the
PeerConnection enters the "have-local-offer" state, and continues
until setRemoteDescription is called with either a final answer, at
which point the PeerConnection can fully adopt the pending local
description, or a rollback, which results in a revert to the current
local description.
This API indirectly controls the candidate gathering process. When a
local description is supplied, and the number of transports currently
in use does not match the number of transports needed by the local
description, the PeerConnection will create transports as needed and
begin gathering candidates for each transport, using ones from the
candidate pool if available.
If setRemoteDescription was previously called with an offer, and
setLocalDescription is called with an answer (provisional or final),
and the media directions are compatible, and media is available to
send, this will result in the starting of media transmission.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
4.1.10. setRemoteDescription
The setRemoteDescription method instructs the PeerConnection to apply
the supplied session description as the desired remote configuration.
As in setLocalDescription, the type field of the description
indicates how it should be processed.
This API changes the local media state; among other things, it sets
up local resources for sending and encoding media.
If setLocalDescription was previously called with an offer, and
setRemoteDescription is called with an answer (provisional or final),
and the media directions are compatible, and media is available to
send, this will result in the starting of media transmission.
4.1.11. currentLocalDescription
The currentLocalDescription method returns the current negotiated
local description - i.e., the local description from the last
successful offer/answer exchange - in addition to any local
candidates that have been generated by the ICE agent since the local
description was set.
A null object will be returned if an offer/answer exchange has not
yet been completed.
4.1.12. pendingLocalDescription
The pendingLocalDescription method returns a copy of the local
description currently in negotiation - i.e., a local offer set
without any corresponding remote answer - in addition to any local
candidates that have been generated by the ICE agent since the local
description was set.
A null object will be returned if the state of the PeerConnection is
"stable" or "have-remote-offer".
4.1.13. currentRemoteDescription
The currentRemoteDescription method returns a copy of the current
negotiated remote description - i.e., the remote description from the
last successful offer/answer exchange - in addition to any remote
candidates that have been supplied via processIceMessage since the
remote description was set.
A null object will be returned if an offer/answer exchange has not
yet been completed.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
4.1.14. pendingRemoteDescription
The pendingRemoteDescription method returns a copy of the remote
description currently in negotiation - i.e., a remote offer set
without any corresponding local answer - in addition to any remote
candidates that have been supplied via processIceMessage since the
remote description was set.
A null object will be returned if the state of the PeerConnection is
"stable" or "have-local-offer".
4.1.15. canTrickleIceCandidates
The canTrickleIceCandidates property indicates whether the remote
side supports receiving trickled candidates. There are three
potential values:
null: No SDP has been received from the other side, so it is not
known if it can handle trickle. This is the initial value before
setRemoteDescription() is called.
true: SDP has been received from the other side indicating that it
can support trickle.
false: SDP has been received from the other side indicating that it
cannot support trickle.
As described in Section 3.5.2, JSEP implementations always provide
candidates to the application individually, consistent with what is
needed for Trickle ICE. However, applications can use the
canTrickleIceCandidates property to determine whether their peer can
actually do Trickle ICE, i.e., whether it is safe to send an initial
offer or answer followed later by candidates as they are gathered.
As "true" is the only value that definitively indicates remote
Trickle ICE support, an application which compares
canTrickleIceCandidates against "true" will by default attempt Half
Trickle on initial offers and Full Trickle on subsequent interactions
with a Trickle ICE-compatible agent.
4.1.16. setConfiguration
The setConfiguration method allows the global configuration of the
PeerConnection, which was initially set by constructor parameters, to
be changed during the session. The effects of this method call
depend on when it is invoked, and differ depending on which specific
parameters are changed:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Any changes to the STUN/TURN servers to use affect the next
gathering phase. If an ICE gathering phase has already started or
completed, the 'needs-ice-restart' bit mentioned in Section 3.5.1
will be set. This will cause the next call to createOffer to
generate new ICE credentials, for the purpose of forcing an ICE
restart and kicking off a new gathering phase, in which the new
servers will be used. If the ICE candidate pool has a nonzero
size, and a local description has not yet been applied, any
existing candidates will be discarded, and new candidates will be
gathered from the new servers.
o Any change to the ICE candidate policy affects the next gathering
phase. If an ICE gathering phase has already started or
completed, the 'needs-ice-restart' bit will be set. Either way,
changes to the policy have no effect on the candidate pool,
because pooled candidates are not made available to the
application until a gathering phase occurs, and so any necessary
filtering can still be done on any pooled candidates.
o The ICE candidate pool size MUST NOT be changed after applying a
local description. If a local description has not yet been
applied, any changes to the ICE candidate pool size take effect
immediately; if increased, additional candidates are pre-gathered;
if decreased, the now-superfluous candidates are discarded.
o The bundle and RTCP-multiplexing policies MUST NOT be changed
after the construction of the PeerConnection.
This call may result in a change to the state of the ICE Agent.
4.1.17. addIceCandidate
The addIceCandidate method provides an update to the ICE agent via an
IceCandidate object Section 3.5.2.1. If the IceCandidate's candidate
field is filled in, the IceCandidate is treated as a new remote ICE
candidate, which will be added to the current and/or pending remote
description according to the rules defined for Trickle ICE.
Otherwise, the IceCandidate is treated as an end-of-candidates
indication, as defined in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle].
In either case, the m= section index, MID, and ufrag fields from the
supplied IceCandidate are used to determine which m= section and ICE
candidate generation the IceCandidate belongs to, as described in
Section 3.5.2.1 above. In the case of an end-of-candidates
indication, the absence of both the m= section index and MID fields
is interpreted to mean that the indication applies to all m= sections
in the specified ICE candidate generation. However, if both fields
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
are absent for a new remote candidate, this MUST be treated as an
invalid condition, as specified below.
If any IceCandidate fields contain invalid values, or an error occurs
during the processing of the IceCandidate object, the supplied
IceCandidate MUST be ignored and an error MUST be returned.
Otherwise, the new remote candidate or end-of-candidates indication
is supplied to the ICE agent. In the case of a new remote candidate,
connectivity checks will be sent to the new candidate.
4.2. RtpTransceiver
4.2.1. stop
The stop method stops an RtpTransceiver. This will cause future
calls to createOffer to generate a zero port for the associated m=
section. See below for more details.
4.2.2. stopped
The stopped property indicates whether the transceiver has been
stopped, either by a call to stopTransceiver or by applying an answer
that rejects the associated m= section. In either of these cases, it
is set to "true", and otherwise will be set to "false".
A stopped RtpTransceiver does not send any outgoing RTP or RTCP or
process any incoming RTP or RTCP. It cannot be restarted.
4.2.3. setDirection
The setDirection method sets the direction of a transceiver, which
affects the direction property of the associated m= section on future
calls to createOffer and createAnswer. The permitted values for
direction are "recvonly", "sendrecv", "sendonly", and "inactive",
mirroring the identically-named directional attributes defined in
[RFC4566], Section 6.
When creating offers, the transceiver direction is directly reflected
in the output, even for re-offers. When creating answers, the
transceiver direction is intersected with the offered direction, as
explained in Section 5.3 below.
Note that while setDirection sets the direction property of the
transceiver immediately ( Section 4.2.4), this property does not
immediately affect whether the transceiver's RtpSender will send or
its RtpReceiver will receive. The direction in effect is represented
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
by the currentDirection property, which is only updated when an
answer is applied.
4.2.4. direction
The direction property indicates the last value passed into
setDirection. If setDirection has never been called, it is set to
the direction the transceiver was initialized with.
4.2.5. currentDirection
The currentDirection property indicates the last negotiated direction
for the transceiver's associated m= section. More specifically, it
indicates the [RFC3264] directional attribute of the associated m=
section in the last applied answer (including provisional answers),
with "send" and "recv" directions reversed if it was a remote answer.
For example, if the directional attribute for the associated m=
section in a remote answer is "recvonly", currentDirection is set to
"sendonly".
If an answer that references this transceiver has not yet been
applied, or if the transceiver is stopped, currentDirection is set to
null.
4.2.6. setCodecPreferences
The setCodecPreferences method sets the codec preferences of a
transceiver, which in turn affect the presence and order of codecs of
the associated m= section on future calls to createOffer and
createAnswer. Note that setCodecPreferences does not directly affect
which codec the implementation decides to send. It only affects
which codecs the implementation indicates that it prefers to receive,
via the offer or answer. Even when a codec is excluded by
setCodecPreferences, it still may be used to send until the next
offer/answer exchange discards it.
The codec preferences of an RtpTransceiver can cause codecs to be
excluded by subsequent calls to createOffer and createAnswer, in
which case the corresponding media formats in the associated m=
section will be excluded. The codec preferences cannot add media
formats that would otherwise not be present.
The codec preferences of an RtpTransceiver can also determine the
order of codecs in subsequent calls to createOffer and createAnswer,
in which case the order of the media formats in the associated m=
section will follow the specified preferences.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
5. SDP Interaction Procedures
This section describes the specific procedures to be followed when
creating and parsing SDP objects.
5.1. Requirements Overview
JSEP implementations must comply with the specifications listed below
that govern the creation and processing of offers and answers.
5.1.1. Usage Requirements
All session descriptions handled by JSEP implementations, both local
and remote, MUST indicate support for the following specifications.
If any of these are absent, this omission MUST be treated as an
error.
o ICE, as specified in [RFC8445], MUST be used. Note that the
remote endpoint may use a Lite implementation; implementations
MUST properly handle remote endpoints which do ICE-Lite.
o DTLS [RFC6347] or DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763], MUST be used, as
appropriate for the media type, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
The SDES SRTP keying mechanism from [RFC4568] MUST NOT be used, as
discussed in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch].
5.1.2. Profile Names and Interoperability
For media m= sections, JSEP implementations MUST support the
"UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" profile specified in [RFC5764] as well as the
"TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF" profile specified in [RFC7850], and MUST
indicate one of these profiles for each media m= line they produce in
an offer. For data m= sections, implementations MUST support the
"UDP/DTLS/SCTP" profile as well as the "TCP/DTLS/SCTP" profile, and
MUST indicate one of these profiles for each data m= line they
produce in an offer. The exact profile to use is determined by the
protocol associated with the current default or selected ICE
candidate, as described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp],
Section 3.2.1.2.
Unfortunately, in an attempt at compatibility, some endpoints
generate other profile strings even when they mean to support one of
these profiles. For instance, an endpoint might generate "RTP/AVP"
but supply "a=fingerprint" and "a=rtcp-fb" attributes, indicating its
willingness to support "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" or "TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF".
In order to simplify compatibility with such endpoints, JSEP
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
implementations MUST follow the following rules when processing the
media m= sections in a received offer:
o Any profile in the offer matching one of the following MUST be
accepted:
* "RTP/AVP" (Defined in [RFC4566], Section 8.2.2)
* "RTP/AVPF" (Defined in [RFC4585], Section 9)
* "RTP/SAVP" (Defined in [RFC3711], Section 12)
* "RTP/SAVPF" (Defined in [RFC5124], Section 6)
* "TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVP" (Defined in [RFC7850], Section 3.4)
* "TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF" (Defined in [RFC7850], Section 3.5)
* "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVP" (Defined in [RFC5764], Section 9)
* "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" (Defined in [RFC5764], Section 9)
o The profile in any "m=" line in any generated answer MUST exactly
match the profile provided in the offer.
o Because DTLS-SRTP is REQUIRED, the choice of SAVP or AVP has no
effect; support for DTLS-SRTP is determined by the presence of one
or more "a=fingerprint" attribute. Note that lack of an
"a=fingerprint" attribute will lead to negotiation failure.
o The use of AVPF or AVP simply controls the timing rules used for
RTCP feedback. If AVPF is provided, or an "a=rtcp-fb" attribute
is present, assume AVPF timing, i.e., a default value of "trr-
int=0". Otherwise, assume that AVPF is being used in an AVP
compatible mode and use a value of "trr-int=4000".
o For data m= sections, implementations MUST support receiving the
"UDP/DTLS/SCTP", "TCP/DTLS/SCTP", or "DTLS/SCTP" (for backwards
compatibility) profiles.
Note that re-offers by JSEP implementations MUST use the correct
profile strings even if the initial offer/answer exchange used an
(incorrect) older profile string. This simplifies JSEP behavior,
with minimal downside, as any remote endpoint that fails to handle
such a re-offer will also fail to handle a JSEP endpoint's initial
offer.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
5.2. Constructing an Offer
When createOffer is called, a new SDP description must be created
that includes the functionality specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. The exact details of this process are
explained below.
5.2.1. Initial Offers
When createOffer is called for the first time, the result is known as
the initial offer.
The first step in generating an initial offer is to generate session-
level attributes, as specified in [RFC4566], Section 5.
Specifically:
o The first SDP line MUST be "v=0", as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.1
o The second SDP line MUST be an "o=" line, as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 5.2. The value of the <username> field SHOULD
be "-". The sess-id MUST be representable by a 64-bit signed
integer, and the value MUST be less than (2**63)-1. It is
RECOMMENDED that the sess-id be constructed by generating a 64-bit
quantity with the highest bit set to zero and the remaining 63
bits being cryptographically random. The value of the <nettype>
<addrtype> <unicast-address> tuple SHOULD be set to a non-
meaningful address, such as IN IP4 0.0.0.0, to prevent leaking a
local IP address in this field; this problem is discussed in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling]. As mentioned in [RFC4566], the
entire o= line needs to be unique, but selecting a random number
for <sess-id> is sufficient to accomplish this.
o The third SDP line MUST be a "s=" line, as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.3; to match the "o=" line, a single dash SHOULD be used
as the session name, e.g. "s=-". Note that this differs from the
advice in [RFC4566] which proposes a single space, but as both
"o=" and "s=" are meaningless in JSEP, having the same meaningless
value seems clearer.
o Session Information ("i="), URI ("u="), Email Address ("e="),
Phone Number ("p="), Repeat Times ("r="), and Time Zones ("z=")
lines are not useful in this context and SHOULD NOT be included.
o Encryption Keys ("k=") lines do not provide sufficient security
and MUST NOT be included.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o A "t=" line MUST be added, as specified in [RFC4566], Section 5.9;
both <start-time> and <stop-time> SHOULD be set to zero, e.g. "t=0
0".
o An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" and "ice2" options MUST
be added, as specified in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 3 and
[RFC8445], Section 10.
o If WebRTC identity is being used, an "a=identity" line as
described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch], Section 5.
The next step is to generate m= sections, as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.14. An m= section is generated for each RtpTransceiver
that has been added to the PeerConnection, excluding any stopped
RtpTransceivers; this is done in the order the RtpTransceivers were
added to the PeerConnection. If there are no such RtpTransceivers,
no m= sections are generated; more can be added later, as discussed
in [RFC3264], Section 5.
For each m= section generated for an RtpTransceiver, establish a
mapping between the transceiver and the index of the generated m=
section.
Each m= section, provided it is not marked as bundle-only, MUST
generate a unique set of ICE credentials and gather its own unique
set of ICE candidates. Bundle-only m= sections MUST NOT contain any
ICE credentials and MUST NOT gather any candidates.
For DTLS, all m= sections MUST use all the certificate(s) that have
been specified for the PeerConnection; as a result, they MUST all
have the same [RFC8122] fingerprint value(s), or these value(s) MUST
be session-level attributes.
Each m= section should be generated as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.14. For the m= line itself, the following rules MUST be
followed:
o If the m= section is marked as bundle-only, then the port value
MUST be set to 0. Otherwise, the port value is set to the port of
the default ICE candidate for this m= section, but given that no
candidates are available yet, the "dummy" port value of 9
(Discard) MUST be used, as indicated in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle],
Section 5.1.
o To properly indicate use of DTLS, the <proto> field MUST be set to
"UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF", as specified in [RFC5764], Section 8.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o If codec preferences have been set for the associated transceiver,
media formats MUST be generated in the corresponding order, and
MUST exclude any codecs not present in the codec preferences.
o Unless excluded by the above restrictions, the media formats MUST
include the mandatory audio/video codecs as specified in
[RFC7874], Section 3, and [RFC7742], Section 5.
The m= line MUST be followed immediately by a "c=" line, as specified
in [RFC4566], Section 5.7. Again, as no candidates are available
yet, the "c=" line must contain the "dummy" value "IN IP4 0.0.0.0",
as defined in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 5.1.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] groups SDP attributes into
different categories. To avoid unnecessary duplication when
bundling, attributes of category IDENTICAL or TRANSPORT MUST NOT be
repeated in bundled m= sections, repeating the guidance from
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 8.1. This includes
m= sections for which bundling has been negotiated and is still
desired, as well as m= sections marked as bundle-only.
The following attributes, which are of a category other than
IDENTICAL or TRANSPORT, MUST be included in each m= section:
o An "a=mid" line, as specified in [RFC5888], Section 4. All MID
values MUST be generated in a fashion that does not leak user
information, e.g., randomly or using a per-PeerConnection counter,
and SHOULD be 3 bytes or less, to allow them to efficiently fit
into the RTP header extension defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 14. Note that
this does not set the RtpTransceiver mid property, as that only
occurs when the description is applied. The generated MID value
can be considered a "proposed" MID at this point.
o A direction attribute which is the same as that of the associated
transceiver.
o For each media format on the m= line, "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp"
lines, as specified in [RFC4566], Section 6, and [RFC3264],
Section 5.1.
o For each primary codec where RTP retransmission should be used, a
corresponding "a=rtpmap" line indicating "rtx" with the clock rate
of the primary codec and an "a=fmtp" line that references the
payload type of the primary codec, as specified in [RFC4588],
Section 8.1.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o For each supported FEC mechanism, "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines,
as specified in [RFC4566], Section 6. The FEC mechanisms that
MUST be supported are specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-fec],
Section 6, and specific usage for each media type is outlined in
Sections 4 and 5.
o If this m= section is for media with configurable durations of
media per packet, e.g., audio, an "a=maxptime" line, indicating
the maximum amount of media, specified in milliseconds, that can
be encapsulated in each packet, as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 6. This value is set to the smallest of the maximum
duration values across all the codecs included in the m= section.
o If this m= section is for video media, and there are known
limitations on the size of images which can be decoded, an
"a=imageattr" line, as specified in Section 3.6.
o For each supported RTP header extension, an "a=extmap" line, as
specified in [RFC5285], Section 5. The list of header extensions
that SHOULD/MUST be supported is specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], Section 5.2. Any header extensions
that require encryption MUST be specified as indicated in
[RFC6904], Section 4.
o For each supported RTCP feedback mechanism, an "a=rtcp-fb" line,
as specified in [RFC4585], Section 4.2. The list of RTCP feedback
mechanisms that SHOULD/MUST be supported is specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], Section 5.1.
o If the RtpTransceiver has a sendrecv or sendonly direction:
* For each MediaStream that was associated with the transceiver
when it was created via addTrack or addTransceiver, an "a=msid"
line, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid], Section 2, but
omitting the "appdata" field.
o If the RtpTransceiver has a sendrecv or sendonly direction, and
the application has specified RID values or has specified more
than one encoding in the RtpSenders's parameters, an "a=rid" line
for each encoding specified. The "a=rid" line is specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid], and its direction MUST be "send". If the
application has chosen a RID value, it MUST be used as the rid-
identifier; otherwise a RID value MUST be generated by the
implementation. RID values MUST be generated in a fashion that
does not leak user information, e.g., randomly or using a per-
PeerConnection counter, and SHOULD be 3 bytes or less, to allow
them to efficiently fit into the RTP header extension defined in
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rid], Section 3. If no encodings have been
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
specified, or only one encoding is specified but without a RID
value, then no "a=rid" lines are generated.
o If the RtpTransceiver has a sendrecv or sendonly direction and
more than one "a=rid" line has been generated, an "a=simulcast"
line, with direction "send", as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast], Section 6.2. The list of RIDs
MUST include all of the RID identifiers used in the "a=rid" lines
for this m= section.
o If the bundle policy for this PeerConnection is set to "max-
bundle", and this is not the first m= section, or the bundle
policy is set to "balanced", and this is not the first m= section
for this media type, an "a=bundle-only" line.
The following attributes, which are of category IDENTICAL or
TRANSPORT, MUST appear only in "m=" sections which either have a
unique address or which are associated with the bundle-tag. (In
initial offers, this means those "m=" sections which do not contain
an "a=bundle-only" attribute.)
o "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" lines, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4.
o For each desired digest algorithm, one or more "a=fingerprint"
lines for each of the endpoint's certificates, as specified in
[RFC8122], Section 5.
o An "a=setup" line, as specified in [RFC4145], Section 4, and
clarified for use in DTLS-SRTP scenarios in [RFC5763], Section 5.
The role value in the offer MUST be "actpass".
o An "a=tls-id" line, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp],
Section 5.2.
o An "a=rtcp" line, as specified in [RFC3605], Section 2.1,
containing the dummy value "9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0", because no
candidates have yet been gathered.
o An "a=rtcp-mux" line, as specified in [RFC5761], Section 5.1.3.
o If the RTP/RTCP multiplexing policy is "require", an "a=rtcp-mux-
only" line, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive],
Section 4.
o An "a=rtcp-rsize" line, as specified in [RFC5506], Section 5.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Lastly, if a data channel has been created, a m= section MUST be
generated for data. The <media> field MUST be set to "application"
and the <proto> field MUST be set to "UDP/DTLS/SCTP"
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. The "fmt" value MUST be set to "webrtc-
datachannel" as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 4.1.
Within the data m= section, an "a=mid" line MUST be generated and
included as described above, along with an "a=sctp-port" line
referencing the SCTP port number, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 5.1, and, if appropriate, an
"a=max-message-size" line, as defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp],
Section 6.1.
As discussed above, the following attributes of category IDENTICAL or
TRANSPORT are included only if the data m= section either has a
unique address or is associated with the bundle-tag (e.g., if it is
the only m= section):
o "a=ice-ufrag"
o "a=ice-pwd"
o "a=fingerprint"
o "a=setup"
o "a=tls-id"
Once all m= sections have been generated, a session-level "a=group"
attribute MUST be added as specified in [RFC5888]. This attribute
MUST have semantics "BUNDLE", and MUST include the mid identifiers of
each m= section. The effect of this is that the JSEP implementation
offers all m= sections as one bundle group. However, whether the m=
sections are bundle-only or not depends on the bundle policy.
The next step is to generate session-level lip sync groups as defined
in [RFC5888], Section 7. For each MediaStream referenced by more
than one RtpTransceiver (by passing those MediaStreams as arguments
to the addTrack and addTransceiver methods), a group of type "LS"
MUST be added that contains the mid values for each RtpTransceiver.
Attributes which SDP permits to either be at the session level or the
media level SHOULD generally be at the media level even if they are
identical. This assists development and debugging by making it
easier to understand individual media sections, especially if one of
a set of initially identical attributes is subsequently changed.
However, implementations MAY choose to aggregate attributes at the
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
session level and JSEP implementations MUST be prepared to receive
attributes in either location.
Attributes other than the ones specified above MAY be included,
except for the following attributes which are specifically
incompatible with the requirements of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage],
and MUST NOT be included:
o "a=crypto"
o "a=key-mgmt"
o "a=ice-lite"
Note that when bundle is used, any additional attributes that are
added MUST follow the advice in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
on how those attributes interact with bundle.
Note that these requirements are in some cases stricter than those of
SDP. Implementations MUST be prepared to accept compliant SDP even
if it would not conform to the requirements for generating SDP in
this specification.
5.2.2. Subsequent Offers
When createOffer is called a second (or later) time, or is called
after a local description has already been installed, the processing
is somewhat different than for an initial offer.
If the previous offer was not applied using setLocalDescription,
meaning the PeerConnection is still in the "stable" state, the steps
for generating an initial offer should be followed, subject to the
following restriction:
o The fields of the "o=" line MUST stay the same except for the
<session-version> field, which MUST increment by one on each call
to createOffer if the offer might differ from the output of the
previous call to createOffer; implementations MAY opt to increment
<session-version> on every call. The value of the generated
<session-version> is independent of the <session-version> of the
current local description; in particular, in the case where the
current version is N, an offer is created and applied with version
N+1, and then that offer is rolled back so that the current
version is again N, the next generated offer will still have
version N+2.
Note that if the application creates an offer by reading
currentLocalDescription instead of calling createOffer, the returned
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
SDP may be different than when setLocalDescription was originally
called, due to the addition of gathered ICE candidates, but the
<session-version> will not have changed. There are no known
scenarios in which this causes problems, but if this is a concern,
the solution is simply to use createOffer to ensure a unique
<session-version>.
If the previous offer was applied using setLocalDescription, but a
corresponding answer from the remote side has not yet been applied,
meaning the PeerConnection is still in the "have-local-offer" state,
an offer is generated by following the steps in the "stable" state
above, along with these exceptions:
o The "s=" and "t=" lines MUST stay the same.
o If any RtpTransceiver has been added, and there exists an m=
section with a zero port in the current local description or the
current remote description, that m= section MUST be recycled by
generating an m= section for the added RtpTransceiver as if the m=
section were being added to the session description (including a
new MID value), and placing it at the same index as the m= section
with a zero port.
o If an RtpTransceiver is stopped and is not associated with an m=
section, an m= section MUST NOT be generated for it. This
prevents adding back RtpTransceivers whose m= sections were
recycled and used for a new RtpTransceiver in a previous offer/
answer exchange, as described above.
o If an RtpTransceiver has been stopped and is associated with an m=
section, and the m= section is not being recycled as described
above, an m= section MUST be generated for it with the port set to
zero and all "a=msid" lines removed.
o For RtpTransceivers that are not stopped, the "a=msid" line(s)
MUST stay the same if they are present in the current description,
regardless of changes to the transceiver's direction or track. If
no "a=msid" line is present in the current description, "a=msid"
line(s) MUST be generated according to the same rules as for an
initial offer.
o Each "m=" and c=" line MUST be filled in with the port, relevant
RTP profile, and address of the default candidate for the m=
section, as described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp],
Section 3.2.1.2, and clarified in Section 5.1.2. If no RTP
candidates have yet been gathered, dummy values MUST still be
used, as described above.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Each "a=mid" line MUST stay the same.
o Each "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" line MUST stay the same, unless
the ICE configuration has changed (either changes to the supported
STUN/TURN servers, or the ICE candidate policy), or the
"IceRestart" option ( Section 5.2.3.1 was specified. If the m=
section is bundled into another m= section, it still MUST NOT
contain any ICE credentials.
o If the m= section is not bundled into another m= section, its
"a=rtcp" attribute line MUST be filled in with the port and
address of the default RTCP candidate, as indicated in [RFC5761],
Section 5.1.3. If no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered,
dummy values MUST be used, as described in the initial offer
section above.
o If the m= section is not bundled into another m= section, for each
candidate that has been gathered during the most recent gathering
phase (see Section 3.5.1), an "a=candidate" line MUST be added, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.1. If
candidate gathering for the section has completed, an "a=end-of-
candidates" attribute MUST be added, as described in
[I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 9.3. If the m= section is bundled
into another m= section, both "a=candidate" and "a=end-of-
candidates" MUST be omitted.
o For RtpTransceivers that are still present, the "a=rid" lines MUST
stay the same.
o For RtpTransceivers that are still present, any "a=simulcast" line
MUST stay the same.
If the previous offer was applied using setLocalDescription, and a
corresponding answer from the remote side has been applied using
setRemoteDescription, meaning the PeerConnection is in the "have-
remote-pranswer" or "stable" states, an offer is generated based on
the negotiated session descriptions by following the steps mentioned
for the "have-local-offer" state above.
In addition, for each existing, non-recycled, non-rejected m= section
in the new offer, the following adjustments are made based on the
contents of the corresponding m= section in the current local or
remote description, as appropriate:
o The m= line and corresponding "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines MUST
only include media formats which have not been excluded by the
codec preferences of the associated transceiver, and MUST include
all currently available formats. Media formats that were
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
previously offered but are no longer available (e.g., a shared
hardware codec) MAY be excluded.
o Unless codec preferences have been set for the associated
transceiver, the media formats on the m= line MUST be generated in
the same order as in the most recent answer. Any media formats
that were not present in the most recent answer MUST be added
after all existing formats.
o The RTP header extensions MUST only include those that are present
in the most recent answer.
o The RTCP feedback mechanisms MUST only include those that are
present in the most recent answer, except for the case of format-
specific mechanisms that are referencing a newly-added media
format.
o The "a=rtcp" line MUST NOT be added if the most recent answer
included an "a=rtcp-mux" line.
o The "a=rtcp-mux" line MUST be the same as that in the most recent
answer.
o The "a=rtcp-mux-only" line MUST NOT be added.
o The "a=rtcp-rsize" line MUST NOT be added unless present in the
most recent answer.
o An "a=bundle-only" line MUST NOT be added, as indicated in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 6. Instead,
JSEP implementations MUST simply omit parameters in the IDENTICAL
and TRANSPORT categories for bundled m= sections, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 8.1.
o Note that if media m= sections are bundled into a data m= section,
then certain TRANSPORT and IDENTICAL attributes may appear in the
data m= section even if they would otherwise only be appropriate
for a media m= section (e.g., "a=rtcp-mux"). This cannot happen
in initial offers because in the initial offer JSEP
implementations always list media m= sections (if any) before the
data m= section (if any), and at least one of those media m=
sections will not have the "a=bundle-only" attribute. Therefore,
in initial offers, any "a=bundle-only" m= sections will be bundled
into a preceding non-bundle-only media m= section.
The "a=group:BUNDLE" attribute MUST include the MID identifiers
specified in the bundle group in the most recent answer, minus any m=
sections that have been marked as rejected, plus any newly added or
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
re-enabled m= sections. In other words, the bundle attribute must
contain all m= sections that were previously bundled, as long as they
are still alive, as well as any new m= sections.
"a=group:LS" attributes are generated in the same way as for initial
offers, with the additional stipulation that any lip sync groups that
were present in the most recent answer MUST continue to exist and
MUST contain any previously existing MID identifiers, as long as the
identified m= sections still exist and are not rejected, and the
group still contains at least two MID identifiers. This ensures that
any synchronized "recvonly" m= sections continue to be synchronized
in the new offer.
5.2.3. Options Handling
The createOffer method takes as a parameter an RTCOfferOptions
object. Special processing is performed when generating a SDP
description if the following options are present.
5.2.3.1. IceRestart
If the "IceRestart" option is specified, with a value of "true", the
offer MUST indicate an ICE restart by generating new ICE ufrag and
pwd attributes, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp],
Section 3.4.1.1.1. If this option is specified on an initial offer,
it has no effect (since a new ICE ufrag and pwd are already
generated). Similarly, if the ICE configuration has changed, this
option has no effect, since new ufrag and pwd attributes will be
generated automatically. This option is primarily useful for
reestablishing connectivity in cases where failures are detected by
the application.
5.2.3.2. VoiceActivityDetection
Silence suppression, also known as discontinuous transmission
("DTX"), can reduce the bandwidth used for audio by switching to a
special encoding when voice activity is not detected, at the cost of
some fidelity.
If the "VoiceActivityDetection" option is specified, with a value of
"true", the offer MUST indicate support for silence suppression in
the audio it receives by including comfort noise ("CN") codecs for
each offered audio codec, as specified in [RFC3389], Section 5.1,
except for codecs that have their own internal silence suppression
support. For codecs that have their own internal silence suppression
support, the appropriate fmtp parameters for that codec MUST be
specified to indicate that silence suppression for received audio is
desired. For example, when using the Opus codec [RFC6716], the
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
"usedtx=1" parameter, specified in [RFC7587], would be used in the
offer.
If the "VoiceActivityDetection" option is specified, with a value of
"false", the JSEP implementation MUST NOT emit "CN" codecs. For
codecs that have their own internal silence suppression support, the
appropriate fmtp parameters for that codec MUST be specified to
indicate that silence suppression for received audio is not desired.
For example, when using the Opus codec, the "usedtx=0" parameter
would be specified in the offer. In addition, the implementation
MUST NOT use silence suppression for media it generates, regardless
of whether the "CN" codecs or related fmtp parameters appear in the
peer's description. The impact of these rules is that silence
suppression in JSEP depends on mutual agreement of both sides, which
ensures consistent handling regardless of which codec is used.
The "VoiceActivityDetection" option does not have any impact on the
setting of the "vad" value in the signaling of the client to mixer
audio level header extension described in [RFC6464], Section 4.
5.3. Generating an Answer
When createAnswer is called, a new SDP description must be created
that is compatible with the supplied remote description as well as
the requirements specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. The exact
details of this process are explained below.
5.3.1. Initial Answers
When createAnswer is called for the first time after a remote
description has been provided, the result is known as the initial
answer. If no remote description has been installed, an answer
cannot be generated, and an error MUST be returned.
Note that the remote description SDP may not have been created by a
JSEP endpoint and may not conform to all the requirements listed in
Section 5.2. For many cases, this is not a problem. However, if any
mandatory SDP attributes are missing, or functionality listed as
mandatory-to-use above is not present, this MUST be treated as an
error, and MUST cause the affected m= sections to be marked as
rejected.
The first step in generating an initial answer is to generate
session-level attributes. The process here is identical to that
indicated in the initial offers section above, except that the
"a=ice-options" line, with the "trickle" option as specified in
[I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 3, and the "ice2" option as specified
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
in [RFC8445], Section 10, is only included if such an option was
present in the offer.
The next step is to generate session-level lip sync groups, as
defined in [RFC5888], Section 7. For each group of type "LS" present
in the offer, select the local RtpTransceivers that are referenced by
the MID values in the specified group, and determine which of them
either reference a common local MediaStream (specified in the calls
to addTrack/addTransceiver used to create them), or have no
MediaStream to reference because they were not created by addTrack/
addTransceiver. If at least two such RtpTransceivers exist, a group
of type "LS" with the mid values of these RtpTransceivers MUST be
added. Otherwise the offered "LS" group MUST be ignored and no
corresponding group generated in the answer.
As a simple example, consider the following offer of a single audio
and single video track contained in the same MediaStream. SDP lines
not relevant to this example have been removed for clarity. As
explained in Section 5.2, a group of type "LS" has been added that
references each track's RtpTransceiver.
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 10000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=msid:ms1
m=video 10001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=msid:ms1
If the answerer uses a single MediaStream when it adds its tracks,
both of its transceivers will reference this stream, and so the
subsequent answer will contain a "LS" group identical to that in the
offer, as shown below:
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 20000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=msid:ms2
m=video 20001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=msid:ms2
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
However, if the answerer groups its tracks into separate
MediaStreams, its transceivers will reference different streams, and
so the subsequent answer will not contain a "LS" group.
m=audio 20000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=msid:ms2a
m=video 20001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=msid:ms2b
Finally, if the answerer does not add any tracks, its transceivers
will not reference any MediaStreams, causing the preferences of the
offerer to be maintained, and so the subsequent answer will contain
an identical "LS" group.
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 20000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=recvonly
m=video 20001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=recvonly
The Section 7.2 example later in this document shows a more involved
case of "LS" group generation.
The next step is to generate m= sections for each m= section that is
present in the remote offer, as specified in [RFC3264], Section 6.
For the purposes of this discussion, any session-level attributes in
the offer that are also valid as media-level attributes are
considered to be present in each m= section. Each offered m= section
will have an associated RtpTransceiver, as described in Section 5.10.
If there are more RtpTransceivers than there are m= sections, the
unmatched RtpTransceivers will need to be associated in a subsequent
offer.
For each offered m= section, if any of the following conditions are
true, the corresponding m= section in the answer MUST be marked as
rejected by setting the port in the m= line to zero, as indicated in
[RFC3264], Section 6, and further processing for this m= section can
be skipped:
o The associated RtpTransceiver has been stopped.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o None of the offered media formats are supported and, if
applicable, allowed by codec preferences.
o The bundle policy is "max-bundle", and this is not the first m=
section or in the same bundle group as the first m= section.
o The bundle policy is "balanced", and this is not the first m=
section for this media type or in the same bundle group as the
first m= section for this media type.
o This m= section is in a bundle group, and the group's offerer
tagged m= section is being rejected due to one of the above
reasons. This requires all m= sections in the bundle group to be
rejected, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 7.3.3.
Otherwise, each m= section in the answer should then be generated as
specified in [RFC3264], Section 6.1. For the m= line itself, the
following rules must be followed:
o The port value would normally be set to the port of the default
ICE candidate for this m= section, but given that no candidates
are available yet, the "dummy" port value of 9 (Discard) MUST be
used, as indicated in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 5.1.
o The <proto> field MUST be set to exactly match the <proto> field
for the corresponding m= line in the offer.
o If codec preferences have been set for the associated transceiver,
media formats MUST be generated in the corresponding order,
regardless of what was offered, and MUST exclude any codecs not
present in the codec preferences.
o Otherwise, the media formats on the m= line MUST be generated in
the same order as those offered in the current remote description,
excluding any currently unsupported formats. Any currently
available media formats that are not present in the current remote
description MUST be added after all existing formats.
o In either case, the media formats in the answer MUST include at
least one format that is present in the offer, but MAY include
formats that are locally supported but not present in the offer,
as mentioned in [RFC3264], Section 6.1. If no common format
exists, the m= section is rejected as described above.
The m= line MUST be followed immediately by a "c=" line, as specified
in [RFC4566], Section 5.7. Again, as no candidates are available
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
yet, the "c=" line must contain the "dummy" value "IN IP4 0.0.0.0",
as defined in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 5.1.
If the offer supports bundle, all m= sections to be bundled must use
the same ICE credentials and candidates; all m= sections not being
bundled must use unique ICE credentials and candidates. Each m=
section MUST contain the following attributes (which are of attribute
types other than IDENTICAL and TRANSPORT):
o If and only if present in the offer, an "a=mid" line, as specified
in [RFC5888], Section 9.1. The "mid" value MUST match that
specified in the offer.
o A direction attribute, determined by applying the rules regarding
the offered direction specified in [RFC3264], Section 6.1, and
then intersecting with the direction of the associated
RtpTransceiver. For example, in the case where an m= section is
offered as "sendonly", and the local transceiver is set to
"sendrecv", the result in the answer is a "recvonly" direction.
o For each media format on the m= line, "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp"
lines, as specified in [RFC4566], Section 6, and [RFC3264],
Section 6.1.
o If "rtx" is present in the offer, for each primary codec where RTP
retransmission should be used, a corresponding "a=rtpmap" line
indicating "rtx" with the clock rate of the primary codec and an
"a=fmtp" line that references the payload type of the primary
codec, as specified in [RFC4588], Section 8.1.
o For each supported FEC mechanism, "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines,
as specified in [RFC4566], Section 6. The FEC mechanisms that
MUST be supported are specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-fec],
Section 6, and specific usage for each media type is outlined in
Sections 4 and 5.
o If this m= section is for media with configurable durations of
media per packet, e.g., audio, an "a=maxptime" line, as described
in Section 5.2.
o If this m= section is for video media, and there are known
limitations on the size of images which can be decoded, an
"a=imageattr" line, as specified in Section 3.6.
o For each supported RTP header extension that is present in the
offer, an "a=extmap" line, as specified in [RFC5285], Section 5.
The list of header extensions that SHOULD/MUST be supported is
specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], Section 5.2. Any header
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
extensions that require encryption MUST be specified as indicated
in [RFC6904], Section 4.
o For each supported RTCP feedback mechanism that is present in the
offer, an "a=rtcp-fb" line, as specified in [RFC4585],
Section 4.2. The list of RTCP feedback mechanisms that SHOULD/
MUST be supported is specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage],
Section 5.1.
o If the RtpTransceiver has a sendrecv or sendonly direction:
* For each MediaStream that was associated with the transceiver
when it was created via addTrack or addTransceiver, an "a=msid"
line, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid], Section 2, but
omitting the "appdata" field.
Each m= section which is not bundled into another m= section, MUST
contain the following attributes (which are of category IDENTICAL or
TRANSPORT):
o "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" lines, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4.
o For each desired digest algorithm, one or more "a=fingerprint"
lines for each of the endpoint's certificates, as specified in
[RFC8122], Section 5.
o An "a=setup" line, as specified in [RFC4145], Section 4, and
clarified for use in DTLS-SRTP scenarios in [RFC5763], Section 5.
The role value in the answer MUST be "active" or "passive". When
the offer contains the "actpass" value, as will always be the case
with JSEP endpoints, the answerer SHOULD use the "active" role.
Offers from non-JSEP endpoints MAY send other values for
"a=setup", in which case the answer MUST use a value consistent
with the value in the offer.
o An "a=tls-id" line, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp],
Section 5.3.
o If present in the offer, an "a=rtcp-mux" line, as specified in
[RFC5761], Section 5.1.3. Otherwise, an "a=rtcp" line, as
specified in [RFC3605], Section 2.1, containing the dummy value "9
IN IP4 0.0.0.0" (because no candidates have yet been gathered).
o If present in the offer, an "a=rtcp-rsize" line, as specified in
[RFC5506], Section 5.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
If a data channel m= section has been offered, a m= section MUST also
be generated for data. The <media> field MUST be set to
"application" and the <proto> and <fmt> fields MUST be set to exactly
match the fields in the offer.
Within the data m= section, an "a=mid" line MUST be generated and
included as described above, along with an "a=sctp-port" line
referencing the SCTP port number, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 5.1, and, if appropriate, an
"a=max-message-size" line, as defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp],
Section 6.1.
As discussed above, the following attributes of category IDENTICAL or
TRANSPORT are included only if the data m= section is not bundled
into another m= section:
o "a=ice-ufrag"
o "a=ice-pwd"
o "a=fingerprint"
o "a=setup"
o "a=tls-id"
Note that if media m= sections are bundled into a data m= section,
then certain TRANSPORT and IDENTICAL attributes may also appear in
the data m= section even if they would otherwise only be appropriate
for a media m= section (e.g., "a=rtcp-mux").
If "a=group" attributes with semantics of "BUNDLE" are offered,
corresponding session-level "a=group" attributes MUST be added as
specified in [RFC5888]. These attributes MUST have semantics
"BUNDLE", and MUST include the all mid identifiers from the offered
bundle groups that have not been rejected. Note that regardless of
the presence of "a=bundle-only" in the offer, no m= sections in the
answer should have an "a=bundle-only" line.
Attributes that are common between all m= sections MAY be moved to
session-level, if explicitly defined to be valid at session-level.
The attributes prohibited in the creation of offers are also
prohibited in the creation of answers.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
5.3.2. Subsequent Answers
When createAnswer is called a second (or later) time, or is called
after a local description has already been installed, the processing
is somewhat different than for an initial answer.
If the previous answer was not applied using setLocalDescription,
meaning the PeerConnection is still in the "have-remote-offer" state,
the steps for generating an initial answer should be followed,
subject to the following restriction:
o The fields of the "o=" line MUST stay the same except for the
<session-version> field, which MUST increment if the session
description changes in any way from the previously generated
answer.
If any session description was previously supplied to
setLocalDescription, an answer is generated by following the steps in
the "have-remote-offer" state above, along with these exceptions:
o The "s=" and "t=" lines MUST stay the same.
o Each "m=" and c=" line MUST be filled in with the port and address
of the default candidate for the m= section, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 3.2.1.2. Note that in
certain cases, the m= line protocol may not match that of the
default candidate, because the m= line protocol value MUST match
what was supplied in the offer, as described above.
o Each "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" line MUST stay the same, unless
the m= section is restarting, in which case new ICE credentials
must be created as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp],
Section 3.4.1.1.1. If the m= section is bundled into another m=
section, it still MUST NOT contain any ICE credentials.
o Each "a=tls-id" line MUST stay the same unless the offerer's
"a=tls-id" line changed, in which case a new "a=tls-id" value MUST
be created, as described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp],
Section 5.2.
o Each "a=setup" line MUST use an "active" or "passive" role value
consistent with the existing DTLS association, if the association
is being continued by the offerer.
o RTCP multiplexing must be used, and an "a=rtcp-mux" line inserted
if and only if the m= section previously used RTCP multiplexing.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o If the m= section is not bundled into another m= section and RTCP
multiplexing is not active, an "a=rtcp" attribute line MUST be
filled in with the port and address of the default RTCP candidate.
If no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered, dummy values MUST be
used, as described in the initial answer section above.
o If the m= section is not bundled into another m= section, for each
candidate that has been gathered during the most recent gathering
phase (see Section 3.5.1), an "a=candidate" line MUST be added, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.1. If
candidate gathering for the section has completed, an "a=end-of-
candidates" attribute MUST be added, as described in
[I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 9.3. If the m= section is bundled
into another m= section, both "a=candidate" and "a=end-of-
candidates" MUST be omitted.
o For RtpTransceivers that are not stopped, the "a=msid" line(s)
MUST stay the same, regardless of changes to the transceiver's
direction or track. If no "a=msid" line is present in the current
description, "a=msid" line(s) MUST be generated according to the
same rules as for an initial answer.
5.3.3. Options Handling
The createAnswer method takes as a parameter an RTCAnswerOptions
object. The set of parameters for RTCAnswerOptions is different than
those supported in RTCOfferOptions; the IceRestart option is
unnecessary, as ICE credentials will automatically be changed for all
m= sections where the offerer chose to perform ICE restart.
The following options are supported in RTCAnswerOptions.
5.3.3.1. VoiceActivityDetection
Silence suppression in the answer is handled as described in
Section 5.2.3.2, with one exception: if support for silence
suppression was not indicated in the offer, the
VoiceActivityDetection parameter has no effect, and the answer should
be generated as if VoiceActivityDetection was set to false. This is
done on a per-codec basis (e.g., if the offerer somehow offered
support for CN but set "usedtx=0" for Opus, setting
VoiceActivityDetection to true would result in an answer with CN
codecs and "usedtx=0"). The impact of this rule is that an answerer
will not try to use silence suppression with any endpoint that does
not offer it, making silence suppression support bilateral even with
non-JSEP endpoints.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
5.4. Modifying an Offer or Answer
The SDP returned from createOffer or createAnswer MUST NOT be changed
before passing it to setLocalDescription. If precise control over
the SDP is needed, the aforementioned createOffer/createAnswer
options or RtpTransceiver APIs MUST be used.
After calling setLocalDescription with an offer or answer, the
application MAY modify the SDP to reduce its capabilities before
sending it to the far side, as long as it follows the rules above
that define a valid JSEP offer or answer. Likewise, an application
that has received an offer or answer from a peer MAY modify the
received SDP, subject to the same constraints, before calling
setRemoteDescription.
As always, the application is solely responsible for what it sends to
the other party, and all incoming SDP will be processed by the JSEP
implementation to the extent of its capabilities. It is an error to
assume that all SDP is well-formed; however, one should be able to
assume that any implementation of this specification will be able to
process, as a remote offer or answer, unmodified SDP coming from any
other implementation of this specification.
5.5. Processing a Local Description
When a SessionDescription is supplied to setLocalDescription, the
following steps MUST be performed:
o If the description is of type "rollback", follow the processing
defined in Section 5.7 and skip the processing described in the
rest of this section.
o Otherwise, the type of the SessionDescription is checked against
the current state of the PeerConnection:
* If the type is "offer", the PeerConnection state MUST be either
"stable" or "have-local-offer".
* If the type is "pranswer" or "answer", the PeerConnection state
MUST be either "have-remote-offer" or "have-local-pranswer".
o If the type is not correct for the current state, processing MUST
stop and an error MUST be returned.
o The SessionDescription is then checked to ensure that its contents
are identical to those generated in the last call to createOffer/
createAnswer, and thus have not been altered, as discussed in
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Section 5.4; otherwise, processing MUST stop and an error MUST be
returned.
o Next, the SessionDescription is parsed into a data structure, as
described in Section 5.8 below.
o Finally, the parsed SessionDescription is applied as described in
Section 5.9 below.
5.6. Processing a Remote Description
When a SessionDescription is supplied to setRemoteDescription, the
following steps MUST be performed:
o If the description is of type "rollback", follow the processing
defined in Section 5.7 and skip the processing described in the
rest of this section.
o Otherwise, the type of the SessionDescription is checked against
the current state of the PeerConnection:
* If the type is "offer", the PeerConnection state MUST be either
"stable" or "have-remote-offer".
* If the type is "pranswer" or "answer", the PeerConnection state
MUST be either "have-local-offer" or "have-remote-pranswer".
o If the type is not correct for the current state, processing MUST
stop and an error MUST be returned.
o Next, the SessionDescription is parsed into a data structure, as
described in Section 5.8 below. If parsing fails for any reason,
processing MUST stop and an error MUST be returned.
o Finally, the parsed SessionDescription is applied as described in
Section 5.10 below.
5.7. Processing a Rollback
A rollback may be performed if the PeerConnection is in any state
except for "stable". This means that both offers and provisional
answers can be rolled back. Rollback can only be used to cancel
proposed changes; there is no support for rolling back from a stable
state to a previous stable state. If a rollback is attempted in the
"stable" state, processing MUST stop and an error MUST be returned.
Note that this implies that once the answerer has performed
setLocalDescription with his answer, this cannot be rolled back.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
The effect of rollback MUST be the same regardless of whether
setLocalDescription or setRemoteDescription is called.
In order to process rollback, a JSEP implementation abandons the
current offer/answer transaction, sets the signaling state to
"stable", and sets the pending local and/or remote description (see
Section 4.1.12 and Section 4.1.14) to null. Any resources or
candidates that were allocated by the abandoned local description are
discarded; any media that is received is processed according to the
previous local and remote descriptions.
A rollback disassociates any RtpTransceivers that were associated
with m= sections by the application of the rolled-back session
description (see Section 5.10 and Section 5.9). This means that some
RtpTransceivers that were previously associated will no longer be
associated with any m= section; in such cases, the value of the
RtpTransceiver's mid property MUST be set to null, and the mapping
between the transceiver and its m= section index MUST be discarded.
RtpTransceivers that were created by applying a remote offer that was
subsequently rolled back MUST be stopped and removed from the
PeerConnection. However, a RtpTransceiver MUST NOT be removed if a
track was attached to the RtpTransceiver via the addTrack method.
This is so that an application may call addTrack, then call
setRemoteDescription with an offer, then roll back that offer, then
call createOffer and have a m= section for the added track appear in
the generated offer.
5.8. Parsing a Session Description
The SDP contained in the session description object consists of a
sequence of text lines, each containing a key-value expression, as
described in [RFC4566], Section 5. The SDP is read, line-by-line,
and converted to a data structure that contains the deserialized
information. However, SDP allows many types of lines, not all of
which are relevant to JSEP applications. For each line, the
implementation will first ensure it is syntactically correct
according to its defining ABNF, check that it conforms to [RFC4566]
and [RFC3264] semantics, and then either parse and store or discard
the provided value, as described below.
If any line is not well-formed, or cannot be parsed as described, the
parser MUST stop with an error and reject the session description,
even if the value is to be discarded. This ensures that
implementations do not accidentally misinterpret ambiguous SDP.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
5.8.1. Session-Level Parsing
First, the session-level lines are checked and parsed. These lines
MUST occur in a specific order, and with a specific syntax, as
defined in [RFC4566], Section 5. Note that while the specific line
types (e.g. "v=", "c=") MUST occur in the defined order, lines of the
same type (typically "a=") can occur in any order.
The following non-attribute lines are not meaningful in the JSEP
context and MAY be discarded once they have been checked.
The "c=" line MUST be checked for syntax but its value is only
used for ICE mismatch detection, as defined in [RFC8445],
Section 5.4. Note that JSEP implementations should never
encounter this condition because ICE is required for WebRTC.
The "i=", "u=", "e=", "p=", "t=", "r=", "z=", and "k=" lines are
not used by this specification; they MUST be checked for syntax
but their values are not used.
The remaining non-attribute lines are processed as follows:
The "v=" line MUST have a version of 0, as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.1.
The "o=" line MUST be parsed as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.2.
The "b=" line, if present, MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 5.8, and the bwtype and bandwidth values
stored.
Finally, the attribute lines are processed. Specific processing MUST
be applied for the following session-level attribute ("a=") lines:
o Any "a=group" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC5888],
Section 5, and the group's semantics and mids are stored.
o If present, a single "a=ice-lite" line is parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.3, and a value indicating
the presence of ice-lite is stored.
o If present, a single "a=ice-ufrag" line is parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4, and the ufrag value is
stored.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o If present, a single "a=ice-pwd" line is parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4, and the password value
is stored.
o If present, a single "a=ice-options" line is parsed as specified
in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.6, and the set of
specified options is stored.
o Any "a=fingerprint" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC8122],
Section 5, and the set of fingerprint and algorithm values is
stored.
o If present, a single "a=setup" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC4145], Section 4, and the setup value is stored.
o If present, a single "a=tls-id" line is parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp] Section 5, and the tls-id value is
stored.
o Any "a=identity" lines are parsed and the identity values stored
for subsequent verification, as specified
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch], Section 5.
o Any "a=extmap" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC5285],
Section 5, and their values are stored.
Other attributes that are not relevant to JSEP may also be present,
and implementations SHOULD process any that they recognize. As
required by [RFC4566], Section 5.13, unknown attribute lines MUST be
ignored.
Once all the session-level lines have been parsed, processing
continues with the lines in m= sections.
5.8.2. Media Section Parsing
Like the session-level lines, the media section lines MUST occur in
the specific order and with the specific syntax defined in [RFC4566],
Section 5.
The "m=" line itself MUST be parsed as described in [RFC4566],
Section 5.14, and the media, port, proto, and fmt values stored.
Following the "m=" line, specific processing MUST be applied for the
following non-attribute lines:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o As with the "c=" line at the session level, the "c=" line MUST be
parsed according to [RFC4566], Section 5.7, but its value is not
used.
o The "b=" line, if present, MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 5.8, and the bwtype and bandwidth values
stored.
Specific processing MUST also be applied for the following attribute
lines:
o If present, a single "a=ice-ufrag" line is parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4, and the ufrag value is
stored.
o If present, a single "a=ice-pwd" line is parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4, and the password value
is stored.
o If present, a single "a=ice-options" line is parsed as specified
in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.6, and the set of
specified options is stored.
o Any "a=candidate" attributes MUST be parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.1, and their values
stored.
o Any "a=remote-candidates" attributes MUST be parsed as specified
in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.2, but their values
are ignored.
o If present, a single "a=end-of-candidates" attribute MUST be
parsed as specified in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 8.2, and
its presence or absence flagged and stored.
o Any "a=fingerprint" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC8122],
Section 5, and the set of fingerprint and algorithm values is
stored.
If the "m=" proto value indicates use of RTP, as described in
Section 5.1.2 above, the following attribute lines MUST be processed:
o The "m=" fmt value MUST be parsed as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.14, and the individual values stored.
o Any "a=rtpmap" or "a=fmtp" lines MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 6, and their values stored.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o If present, a single "a=ptime" line MUST be parsed as described in
[RFC4566], Section 6, and its value stored.
o If present, a single "a=maxptime" line MUST be parsed as described
in [RFC4566], Section 6, and its value stored.
o If present, a single direction attribute line (e.g. "a=sendrecv")
MUST be parsed as described in [RFC4566], Section 6, and its value
stored.
o Any "a=ssrc" attributes MUST be parsed as specified in [RFC5576],
Section 4.1, and their values stored.
o Any "a=extmap" attributes MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC5285], Section 5, and their values stored.
o Any "a=rtcp-fb" attributes MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC4585], Section 4.2., and their values stored.
o If present, a single "a=rtcp-mux" attribute MUST be parsed as
specified in [RFC5761], Section 5.1.3, and its presence or absence
flagged and stored.
o If present, a single "a=rtcp-mux-only" attribute MUST be parsed as
specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive], Section 3, and its
presence or absence flagged and stored.
o If present, a single "a=rtcp-rsize" attribute MUST be parsed as
specified in [RFC5506], Section 5, and its presence or absence
flagged and stored.
o If present, a single "a=rtcp" attribute MUST be parsed as
specified in [RFC3605], Section 2.1, but its value is ignored, as
this information is superfluous when using ICE.
o If present, "a=msid" attributes MUST be parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid], Section 3.2, and their values stored,
ignoring any "appdata" field. If no "a=msid" attributes are
present, a random msid-id value is generated for a "default"
MediaStream for the session, if not already present, and this
value is stored.
o Any "a=imageattr" attributes MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC6236], Section 3, and their values stored.
o Any "a=rid" lines MUST be parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid], Section 10, and their values stored.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o If present, a single "a=simulcast" line MUST be parsed as
specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast], and its values
stored.
Otherwise, if the "m=" proto value indicates use of SCTP, the
following attribute lines MUST be processed:
o The "m=" fmt value MUST be parsed as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 4.3, and the application
protocol value stored.
o An "a=sctp-port" attribute MUST be present, and it MUST be parsed
as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 5.2, and the
value stored.
o If present, a single "a=max-message-size" attribute MUST be parsed
as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 6, and the
value stored. Otherwise, use the specified default.
Other attributes that are not relevant to JSEP may also be present,
and implementations SHOULD process any that they recognize. As
required by [RFC4566], Section 5.13, unknown attribute lines MUST be
ignored.
5.8.3. Semantics Verification
Assuming parsing completes successfully, the parsed description is
then evaluated to ensure internal consistency as well as proper
support for mandatory features. Specifically, the following checks
are performed:
o For each m= section, valid values for each of the mandatory-to-use
features enumerated in Section 5.1.1 MUST be present. These
values MAY either be present at the media level, or inherited from
the session level.
* ICE ufrag and password values, which MUST comply with the size
limits specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 4.4.
* tls-id value, which MUST be set according to
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp], Section 5. If this is a re-offer
or a response to a re-offer and the tls-id value is different
from that presently in use, the DTLS connection is not being
continued and the remote description MUST be part of an ICE
restart, together with new ufrag and password values.
* DTLS setup value, which MUST be set according to the rules
specified in [RFC5763], Section 5 and MUST be consistent with
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
the selected role of the current DTLS connection, if one exists
and is being continued.
* DTLS fingerprint values, where at least one fingerprint MUST be
present.
o All RID values referenced in an "a=simulcast" line MUST exist as
"a=rid" lines.
o Each m= section is also checked to ensure prohibited features are
not used.
o If the RTP/RTCP multiplexing policy is "require", each m= section
MUST contain an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute. If an m= section contains
an "a=rtcp-mux-only" attribute, that section MUST also contain an
"a=rtcp-mux" attribute.
o If an m= section was present in the previous answer, the state of
RTP/RTCP multiplexing MUST match what was previously negotiated.
If this session description is of type "pranswer" or "answer", the
following additional checks are applied:
o The session description must follow the rules defined in
[RFC3264], Section 6, including the requirement that the number of
m= sections MUST exactly match the number of m= sections in the
associated offer.
o For each m= section, the media type and protocol values MUST
exactly match the media type and protocol values in the
corresponding m= section in the associated offer.
If any of the preceding checks failed, processing MUST stop and an
error MUST be returned.
5.9. Applying a Local Description
The following steps are performed at the media engine level to apply
a local description. If an error is returned, the session MUST be
restored to the state it was in before performing these steps.
First, m= sections are processed. For each m= section, the following
steps MUST be performed; if any parameters are out of bounds, or
cannot be applied, processing MUST stop and an error MUST be
returned.
o If this m= section is new, begin gathering candidates for it, as
defined in [RFC8445], Section 5.1.1, unless it is definitively
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
being bundled (either this is an offer and the m= section is
marked bundle-only, or it is an answer and the m= section is
bundled into into another m= section.)
o Or, if the ICE ufrag and password values have changed, trigger the
ICE agent to start an ICE restart as described in [RFC8445],
Section 9, and begin gathering new candidates for the m= section.
If this description is an answer, also start checks on that media
section.
o If the m= section proto value indicates use of RTP:
* If there is no RtpTransceiver associated with this m= section,
find one and associate it with this m= section according to the
following steps. Note that this situation will only occur when
applying an offer.
+ Find the RtpTransceiver that corresponds to this m= section,
using the mapping between transceivers and m= section
indices established when creating the offer.
+ Set the value of this RtpTransceiver's mid property to the
MID of the m= section.
* If RTCP mux is indicated, prepare to demux RTP and RTCP from
the RTP ICE component, as specified in [RFC5761],
Section 5.1.3.
* For each specified RTP header extension, establish a mapping
between the extension ID and URI, as described in [RFC5285],
Section 6.
* If the MID header extension is supported, prepare to demux RTP
streams intended for this m= section based on the MID header
extension, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 15.
* For each specified media format, establish a mapping between
the payload type and the actual media format, as described in
[RFC3264], Section 6.1. In addition, prepare to demux RTP
streams intended for this m= section based on the media formats
supported by this m= section, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 10.2.
* For each specified "rtx" media format, establish a mapping
between the RTX payload type and its associated primary payload
type, as described in [RFC4588], Sections 8.6 and 8.7.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
* If the directional attribute is of type "sendrecv" or
"recvonly", enable receipt and decoding of media.
Finally, if this description is of type "pranswer" or "answer",
follow the processing defined in Section 5.11 below.
5.10. Applying a Remote Description
The following steps are performed to apply a remote description. If
an error is returned, the session MUST be restored to the state it
was in before performing these steps.
If the answer contains any "a=ice-options" attributes where "trickle"
is listed as an attribute, update the PeerConnection canTrickle
property to be true. Otherwise, set this property to false.
The following steps MUST be performed for attributes at the session
level; if any parameters are out of bounds, or cannot be applied,
processing MUST stop and an error MUST be returned.
o For any specified "CT" bandwidth value, set this as the limit for
the maximum total bitrate for all m= sections, as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 5.8. Within this overall limit, the
implementation can dynamically decide how to best allocate the
available bandwidth between m= sections, respecting any specific
limits that have been specified for individual m= sections.
o For any specified "RR" or "RS" bandwidth values, handle as
specified in [RFC3556], Section 2.
o Any "AS" bandwidth value MUST be ignored, as the meaning of this
construct at the session level is not well defined.
For each m= section, the following steps MUST be performed; if any
parameters are out of bounds, or cannot be applied, processing MUST
stop and an error MUST be returned.
o If the ICE ufrag or password changed from the previous remote
description:
* If the description is of type "offer", the implementation MUST
note that an ICE restart is needed, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 3.4.1.1.1
* If the description is of type "answer" or "pranswer", then
check to see if the current local description is an ICE
restart, and if not, generate an error. If the PeerConnection
state is "have-remote-pranswer", and the ICE ufrag or password
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
changed from the previous provisional answer, then signal the
ICE agent to discard any previous ICE check list state for the
m= section. Finally, signal the ICE agent to begin checks.
o If the current local description indicates an ICE restart, and
either the ICE ufrag or password has not changed from the previous
remote description, as prescribed by [RFC8445], Section 9,
generate an error.
o Configure the ICE components associated with this media section to
use the supplied ICE remote ufrag and password for their
connectivity checks.
o Pair any supplied ICE candidates with any gathered local
candidates, as described in [RFC8445], Section 6.1.2, and start
connectivity checks with the appropriate credentials.
o If an "a=end-of-candidates" attribute is present, process the end-
of-candidates indication as described in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle],
Section 11.
o If the m= section proto value indicates use of RTP:
* If the m= section is being recycled (see Section 5.2.2),
dissociate the currently associated RtpTransceiver by setting
its mid property to null, and discard the mapping between the
transceiver and its m= section index.
* If the m= section is not associated with any RtpTransceiver
(possibly because it was dissociated in the previous step),
either find an RtpTransceiver or create one according to the
following steps:
+ If the m= section is sendrecv or recvonly, and there are
RtpTransceivers of the same type that were added to the
PeerConnection by addTrack and are not associated with any
m= section and are not stopped, find the first (according to
the canonical order described in Section 5.2.1) such
RtpTransceiver.
+ If no RtpTransceiver was found in the previous step, create
one with a recvonly direction.
+ Associate the found or created RtpTransceiver with the m=
section by setting the value of the RtpTransceiver's mid
property to the MID of the m= section, and establish a
mapping between the transceiver and the index of the m=
section. If the m= section does not include a MID (i.e.,
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
the remote endpoint does not support the MID extension),
generate a value for the RtpTransceiver mid property,
following the guidance for "a=mid" mentioned in
Section 5.2.1.
* For each specified media format that is also supported by the
local implementation, establish a mapping between the specified
payload type and the media format, as described in [RFC3264],
Section 6.1. Specifically, this means that the implementation
records the payload type to be used in outgoing RTP packets
when sending each specified media format, as well as the
relative preference for each format that is indicated in their
ordering. If any indicated media format is not supported by
the local implementation, it MUST be ignored.
* For each specified "rtx" media format, establish a mapping
between the RTX payload type and its associated primary payload
type, as described in [RFC4588], Section 4. If any referenced
primary payload types are not present, this MUST result in an
error. Note that RTX payload types may refer to primary
payload types which are not supported by the local media
implementation, in which case, the RTX payload type MUST also
be ignored.
* For each specified fmtp parameter that is supported by the
local implementation, enable them on the associated media
formats.
* For each specified SSRC that is signaled in the m= section,
prepare to demux RTP streams intended for this m= section using
that SSRC, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 10.2.
* For each specified RTP header extension that is also supported
by the local implementation, establish a mapping between the
extension ID and URI, as described in [RFC5285], Section 5.
Specifically, this means that the implementation records the
extension ID to be used in outgoing RTP packets when sending
each specified header extension. If any indicated RTP header
extension is not supported by the local implementation, it MUST
be ignored.
* For each specified RTCP feedback mechanism that is supported by
the local implementation, enable them on the associated media
formats.
* For any specified "TIAS" bandwidth value, set this value as a
constraint on the maximum RTP bitrate to be used when sending
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
media, as specified in [RFC3890]. If a "TIAS" value is not
present, but an "AS" value is specified, generate a "TIAS"
value using this formula:
TIAS = AS * 1000 * 0.95 - (50 * 40 * 8)
The 50 is based on 50 packets per second, the 40 is based on an
estimate of total header size, the 1000 changes the unit from
kbps to bps (as required by TIAS), and the 0.95 is to allocate
5% to RTCP. "TIAS" is used in preference to "AS" because it
provides more accurate control of bandwidth.
* For any "RR" or "RS" bandwidth values, handle as specified in
[RFC3556], Section 2.
* Any specified "CT" bandwidth value MUST be ignored, as the
meaning of this construct at the media level is not well
defined.
* If the m= section is of type audio:
+ For each specified "CN" media format, configure silence
suppression for all supported media formats with the same
clockrate, as described in [RFC3389], Section 5, except for
formats that have their own internal silence suppression
mechanisms. Silence suppression for such formats (e.g.,
Opus) is controlled via fmtp parameters, as discussed in
Section 5.2.3.2.
+ For each specified "telephone-event" media format, enable
DTMF transmission for all supported media formats with the
same clockrate, as described in [RFC4733], Section 2.5.1.2.
If there are any supported media formats that do not have a
corresponding telephone-event format, disable DTMF
transmission for those formats.
+ For any specified "ptime" value, configure the available
media formats to use the specified packet size when sending.
If the specified size is not supported for a media format,
use the next closest value instead.
Finally, if this description is of type "pranswer" or "answer",
follow the processing defined in Section 5.11 below.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
5.11. Applying an Answer
In addition to the steps mentioned above for processing a local or
remote description, the following steps are performed when processing
a description of type "pranswer" or "answer".
For each m= section, the following steps MUST be performed:
o If the m= section has been rejected (i.e. port is set to zero in
the answer), stop any reception or transmission of media for this
section, and, unless a non-rejected m= section is bundled with
this m= section, discard any associated ICE components, as
described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section 3.4.3.1.
o If the remote DTLS fingerprint has been changed or the tls-id has
changed, tear down the DTLS connection. This includes the case
when the PeerConnection state is "have-remote-pranswer". If a
DTLS connection needs to be torn down but the answer does not
indicate an ICE restart or, in the case of "have-remote-pranswer",
new ICE credentials, an error MUST be generated. If an ICE
restart is performed without a change in tls-id or fingerprint,
then the same DTLS connection is continued over the new ICE
channel. Note that although JSEP requires that answerers change
the tls-id value if and only if the offerer does, non-JSEP
answerers are permitted to change the tls-id as long as the offer
contained an ICE restart. Thus, JSEP implementations which
process DTLS data prior to receiving an answer MUST be prepared to
receive either a ClientHello or data from the previous DTLS
connection.
o If no valid DTLS connection exists, prepare to start a DTLS
connection, using the specified roles and fingerprints, on any
underlying ICE components, once they are active.
o If the m= section proto value indicates use of RTP:
* If the m= section references RTCP feedback mechanisms that were
not present in the corresponding m= section in the offer, this
indicates a negotiation problem and MUST result in an error.
However, new media formats and new RTP header extension values
are permitted in the answer, as described in [RFC3264],
Section 7, and [RFC5285], Section 6.
* If the m= section has RTCP mux enabled, discard the RTCP ICE
component, if one exists, and begin or continue muxing RTCP
over the RTP ICE component, as specified in [RFC5761],
Section 5.1.3. Otherwise, prepare to transmit RTCP over the
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
RTCP ICE component; if no RTCP ICE component exists, because
RTCP mux was previously enabled, this MUST result in an error.
* If the m= section has reduced-size RTCP enabled, configure the
RTCP transmission for this m= section to use reduced-size RTCP,
as specified in [RFC5506].
* If the directional attribute in the answer indicates that the
JSEP implementation should be sending media ("sendonly" for
local answers, "recvonly" for remote answers, or "sendrecv" for
either type of answer), choose the media format to send as the
most preferred media format from the remote description that is
also locally supported, as discussed in [RFC3264], Sections 6.1
and 7, and start transmitting RTP media using that format once
the underlying transport layers have been established. If an
SSRC has not already been chosen for this outgoing RTP stream,
choose a random one. If media is already being transmitted,
the same SSRC SHOULD be used unless the clockrate of the new
codec is different, in which case a new SSRC MUST be chosen, as
specified in [RFC7160], Section 3.1.
* The payload type mapping from the remote description is used to
determine payload types for the outgoing RTP streams, including
the payload type for the send media format chosen above. Any
RTP header extensions that were negotiated should be included
in the outgoing RTP streams, using the extension mapping from
the remote description; if the RID header extension has been
negotiated, and RID values are specified, include the RID
header extension in the outgoing RTP streams, as indicated in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid], Section 4.
* If the m= section is of type audio, and silence suppression was
configured for the send media format as a result of processing
the remote description, and is also enabled for that format in
the local description, use silence suppression for outgoing
media, in accordance with the guidance in Section 5.2.3.2. If
these conditions are not met, silence suppression MUST NOT be
used for outgoing media.
* If simulcast has been negotiated, send the number of Source RTP
Streams as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast],
Section 6.2.2.
* If the send media format chosen above has a corresponding "rtx"
media format, or a FEC mechanism has been negotiated, establish
a Redundancy RTP Stream with a random SSRC for each Source RTP
Stream, and start or continue transmitting RTX/FEC packets as
needed.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
* If the send media format chosen above has a corresponding "red"
media format of the same clockrate, allow redundant encoding
using the specified format for resiliency purposes, as
discussed in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-fec], Section 3.2. Note that
unlike RTX or FEC media formats, the "red" format is
transmitted on the Source RTP Stream, not the Redundancy RTP
Stream.
* Enable the RTCP feedback mechanisms referenced in the media
section for all Source RTP Streams using the specified media
formats. Specifically, begin or continue sending the requested
feedback types and reacting to received feedback, as specified
in [RFC4585], Section 4.2. When sending RTCP feedback, follow
the rules and recommendations from [RFC8108] Section 5.4.1, to
select which SSRC to use.
* If the directional attribute in the answer indicates that the
JSEP implementation should not be sending media ("recvonly" for
local answers, "sendonly" for remote answers, or "inactive" for
either type of answer) stop transmitting all RTP media, but
continue sending RTCP, as described in [RFC3264], Section 5.1.
o If the m= section proto value indicates use of SCTP:
* If an SCTP association exists, and the remote SCTP port has
changed, discard the existing SCTP association. This includes
the case when the PeerConnection state is "have-remote-
pranswer".
* If no valid SCTP association exists, prepare to initiate a SCTP
association over the associated ICE component and DTLS
connection, using the local SCTP port value from the local
description, and the remote SCTP port value from the remote
description, as described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp],
Section 10.2.
If the answer contains valid bundle groups, discard any ICE
components for the m= sections that will be bundled onto the primary
ICE components in each bundle, and begin muxing these m= sections
accordingly, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 8.2.
If the description is of type "answer", and there are still remaining
candidates in the ICE candidate pool, discard them.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
6. Processing RTP/RTCP
When bundling, associating incoming RTP/RTCP with the proper m=
section is defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation],
Section 10.2. When not bundling, the proper m= section is clear from
the ICE component over which the RTP/RTCP is received.
Once the proper m= section(s) are known, RTP/RTCP is delivered to the
RtpTransceiver(s) associated with the m= section(s) and further
processing of the RTP/RTCP is done at the RtpTransceiver level. This
includes using RID [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] to distinguish between
multiple Encoded Streams, as well as determine which Source RTP
stream should be repaired by a given Redundancy RTP stream.
7. Examples
Note that this example section shows several SDP fragments. To
format in 72 columns, some of the lines in SDP have been split into
multiple lines, where leading whitespace indicates that a line is a
continuation of the previous line. In addition, some blank lines
have been added to improve readability but are not valid in SDP.
More examples of SDP for WebRTC call flows, including examples with
IPv6 addresses, can be found in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-sdp].
7.1. Simple Example
This section shows a very simple example that sets up a minimal audio
/ video call between two JSEP endpoints without using trickle ICE.
The example in the following section provides a more detailed example
of what could happen in a JSEP session.
The code flow below shows Alice's endpoint initiating the session to
Bob's endpoint. The messages from the JavaScript application in
Alice's browser to the JavaScript in Bob's browser, abbreviated as
AliceJS and BobJS respectively, are assumed to flow over some
signaling protocol via a web server. The JavaScript on both Alice's
side and Bob's side waits for all candidates before sending the offer
or answer, so the offers and answers are complete; trickle ICE is not
used. The user agents (JSEP implementations) in Alice and Bob's
browsers, abbreviated as AliceUA and BobUA respectively, are using
the default bundle policy of "balanced", and the default RTCP mux
policy of "require".
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
// set up local media state
AliceJS->AliceUA: create new PeerConnection
AliceJS->AliceUA: addTrack with two tracks: audio and video
AliceJS->AliceUA: createOffer to get offer
AliceJS->AliceUA: setLocalDescription with offer
AliceUA->AliceJS: multiple onicecandidate events with candidates
// wait for ICE gathering to complete
AliceUA->AliceJS: onicecandidate event with null candidate
AliceJS->AliceUA: get |offer-A1| from pendingLocalDescription
// |offer-A1| is sent over signaling protocol to Bob
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-A1|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-A1|
// |offer-A1| arrives at Bob
BobJS->BobUA: create a PeerConnection
BobJS->BobUA: setRemoteDescription with |offer-A1|
BobUA->BobJS: ontrack events for audio and video tracks
// Bob accepts call
BobJS->BobUA: addTrack with local tracks
BobJS->BobUA: createAnswer
BobJS->BobUA: setLocalDescription with answer
BobUA->BobJS: multiple onicecandidate events with candidates
// wait for ICE gathering to complete
BobUA->BobJS: onicecandidate event with null candidate
BobJS->BobUA: get |answer-A1| from currentLocalDescription
// |answer-A1| is sent over signaling protocol to Alice
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-A1|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-A1|
// |answer-A1| arrives at Alice
AliceJS->AliceUA: setRemoteDescription with |answer-A1|
AliceUA->AliceJS: ontrack events for audio and video tracks
// media flows
BobUA->AliceUA: media sent from Bob to Alice
AliceUA->BobUA: media sent from Alice to Bob
The SDP for |offer-A1| looks like:
v=0
o=- 4962303333179871722 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 v1
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 10100 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 203.0.113.100
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:47017fee-b6c1-4162-929c-a25110252400
a=ice-ufrag:ETEn
a=ice-pwd:OtSK0WpNtpUjkY4+86js7ZQl
a=fingerprint:sha-256
19:E2:1C:3B:4B:9F:81:E6:B8:5C:F4:A5:A8:D8:73:04:
BB:05:2F:70:9F:04:A9:0E:05:E9:26:33:E8:70:88:A2
a=setup:actpass
a=tls-id:91bbf309c0990a6bec11e38ba2933cee
a=rtcp:10101 IN IP4 203.0.113.100
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.100 10100 typ host
a=candidate:1 2 udp 2113929470 203.0.113.100 10101 typ host
a=end-of-candidates
m=video 10102 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 203.0.113.100
a=mid:v1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:47017fee-b6c1-4162-929c-a25110252400
a=ice-ufrag:BGKk
a=ice-pwd:mqyWsAjvtKwTGnvhPztQ9mIf
a=fingerprint:sha-256
19:E2:1C:3B:4B:9F:81:E6:B8:5C:F4:A5:A8:D8:73:04:
BB:05:2F:70:9F:04:A9:0E:05:E9:26:33:E8:70:88:A2
a=setup:actpass
a=tls-id:91bbf309c0990a6bec11e38ba2933cee
a=rtcp:10103 IN IP4 203.0.113.100
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.100 10102 typ host
a=candidate:1 2 udp 2113929470 203.0.113.100 10103 typ host
a=end-of-candidates
The SDP for |answer-A1| looks like:
v=0
o=- 6729291447651054566 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 v1
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 10200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 203.0.113.200
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:61317484-2ed4-49d7-9eb7-1414322a7aae
a=ice-ufrag:6sFv
a=ice-pwd:cOTZKZNVlO9RSGsEGM63JXT2
a=fingerprint:sha-256
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
6B:8B:F0:65:5F:78:E2:51:3B:AC:6F:F3:3F:46:1B:35:
DC:B8:5F:64:1A:24:C2:43:F0:A1:58:D0:A1:2C:19:08
a=setup:active
a=tls-id:eec3392ab83e11ceb6a0990c903fbb19
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.200 10200 typ host
a=end-of-candidates
m=video 10200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 203.0.113.200
a=mid:v1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:61317484-2ed4-49d7-9eb7-1414322a7aae
7.2. Detailed Example
This section shows a more involved example of a session between two
JSEP endpoints. Trickle ICE is used in full trickle mode, with a
bundle policy of "max-bundle", an RTCP mux policy of "require", and a
single TURN server. Initially, both Alice and Bob establish an audio
channel and a data channel. Later, Bob adds two video flows, one for
his video feed, and one for screensharing, both supporting FEC, and
with the video feed configured for simulcast. Alice accepts these
video flows, but does not add video flows of her own, so they are
handled as recvonly. Alice also specifies a maximum video decoder
resolution.
// set up local media state
AliceJS->AliceUA: create new PeerConnection
AliceJS->AliceUA: addTrack with an audio track
AliceJS->AliceUA: createDataChannel to get data channel
AliceJS->AliceUA: createOffer to get |offer-B1|
AliceJS->AliceUA: setLocalDescription with |offer-B1|
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
// |offer-B1| is sent over signaling protocol to Bob
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-B1|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-B1|
// |offer-B1| arrives at Bob
BobJS->BobUA: create a PeerConnection
BobJS->BobUA: setRemoteDescription with |offer-B1|
BobUA->BobJS: ontrack with audio track from Alice
// candidates are sent to Bob
AliceUA->AliceJS: onicecandidate (host) |offer-B1-candidate-1|
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-B1-candidate-1|
AliceUA->AliceJS: onicecandidate (srflx) |offer-B1-candidate-2|
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-B1-candidate-2|
AliceUA->AliceJS: onicecandidate (relay) |offer-B1-candidate-3|
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-B1-candidate-3|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-B1-candidate-1|
BobJS->BobUA: addIceCandidate with |offer-B1-candidate-1|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-B1-candidate-2|
BobJS->BobUA: addIceCandidate with |offer-B1-candidate-2|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-B1-candidate-3|
BobJS->BobUA: addIceCandidate with |offer-B1-candidate-3|
// Bob accepts call
BobJS->BobUA: addTrack with local audio
BobJS->BobUA: createDataChannel to get data channel
BobJS->BobUA: createAnswer to get |answer-B1|
BobJS->BobUA: setLocalDescription with |answer-B1|
// |answer-B1| is sent to Alice
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-B1|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-B1|
AliceJS->AliceUA: setRemoteDescription with |answer-B1|
AliceUA->AliceJS: ontrack event with audio track from Bob
// candidates are sent to Alice
BobUA->BobJS: onicecandidate (host) |answer-B1-candidate-1|
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-1|
BobUA->BobJS: onicecandidate (srflx) |answer-B1-candidate-2|
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-2|
BobUA->BobJS: onicecandidate (relay) |answer-B1-candidate-3|
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-3|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-1|
AliceJS->AliceUA: addIceCandidate with |answer-B1-candidate-1|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-2|
AliceJS->AliceUA: addIceCandidate with |answer-B1-candidate-2|
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-3|
AliceJS->AliceUA: addIceCandidate with |answer-B1-candidate-3|
// data channel opens
BobUA->BobJS: ondatachannel event
AliceUA->AliceJS: ondatachannel event
BobUA->BobJS: onopen
AliceUA->AliceJS: onopen
// media is flowing between endpoints
BobUA->AliceUA: audio+data sent from Bob to Alice
AliceUA->BobUA: audio+data sent from Alice to Bob
// some time later Bob adds two video streams
// note, no candidates exchanged, because of bundle
BobJS->BobUA: addTrack with first video stream
BobJS->BobUA: addTrack with second video stream
BobJS->BobUA: createOffer to get |offer-B2|
BobJS->BobUA: setLocalDescription with |offer-B2|
// |offer-B2| is sent to Alice
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-B2|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |offer-B2|
AliceJS->AliceUA: setRemoteDescription with |offer-B2|
AliceUA->AliceJS: ontrack event with first video track
AliceUA->AliceJS: ontrack event with second video track
AliceJS->AliceUA: createAnswer to get |answer-B2|
AliceJS->AliceUA: setLocalDescription with |answer-B2|
// |answer-B2| is sent over signaling protocol to Bob
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-B2|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |answer-B2|
BobJS->BobUA: setRemoteDescription with |answer-B2|
// media is flowing between endpoints
BobUA->AliceUA: audio+video+data sent from Bob to Alice
AliceUA->BobUA: audio+video+data sent from Alice to Bob
The SDP for |offer-B1| looks like:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
v=0
o=- 4962303333179871723 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 d1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:57017fee-b6c1-4162-929c-a25110252400
a=ice-ufrag:ATEn
a=ice-pwd:AtSK0WpNtpUjkY4+86js7ZQl
a=fingerprint:sha-256
29:E2:1C:3B:4B:9F:81:E6:B8:5C:F4:A5:A8:D8:73:04:
BB:05:2F:70:9F:04:A9:0E:05:E9:26:33:E8:70:88:A2
a=setup:actpass
a=tls-id:17f0f4ba8a5f1213faca591b58ba52a7
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
m=application 0 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:d1
a=sctp-port:5000
a=max-message-size:65536
a=bundle-only
|offer-B1-candidate-1| looks like:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
ufrag ATEn
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.100 10100 typ host
|offer-B1-candidate-2| looks like:
ufrag ATEn
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 1845494015 198.51.100.100 11100 typ srflx
raddr 203.0.113.100 rport 10100
|offer-B1-candidate-3| looks like:
ufrag ATEn
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.100 12100 typ relay
raddr 198.51.100.100 rport 11100
The SDP for |answer-B1| looks like:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
v=0
o=- 7729291447651054566 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 d1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:71317484-2ed4-49d7-9eb7-1414322a7aae
a=ice-ufrag:7sFv
a=ice-pwd:dOTZKZNVlO9RSGsEGM63JXT2
a=fingerprint:sha-256
7B:8B:F0:65:5F:78:E2:51:3B:AC:6F:F3:3F:46:1B:35:
DC:B8:5F:64:1A:24:C2:43:F0:A1:58:D0:A1:2C:19:08
a=setup:active
a=tls-id:7a25ab85b195acaf3121f5a8ab4f0f71
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
m=application 9 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:d1
a=sctp-port:5000
a=max-message-size:65536
|answer-B1-candidate-1| looks like:
ufrag 7sFv
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.200 10200 typ host
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
|answer-B1-candidate-2| looks like:
ufrag 7sFv
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 1845494015 198.51.100.200 11200 typ srflx
raddr 203.0.113.200 rport 10200
|answer-B1-candidate-3| looks like:
ufrag 7sFv
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.200 12200 typ relay
raddr 198.51.100.200 rport 11200
The SDP for |offer-B2| is shown below. In addition to the new m=
sections for video, both of which are offering FEC, and one of which
is offering simulcast, note the increment of the version number in
the o= line, changes to the c= line, indicating the local candidate
that was selected, and the inclusion of gathered candidates as
a=candidate lines.
v=0
o=- 7729291447651054566 2 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 d1 v1 v2
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 12200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.200
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:71317484-2ed4-49d7-9eb7-1414322a7aae
a=ice-ufrag:7sFv
a=ice-pwd:dOTZKZNVlO9RSGsEGM63JXT2
a=fingerprint:sha-256
7B:8B:F0:65:5F:78:E2:51:3B:AC:6F:F3:3F:46:1B:35:
DC:B8:5F:64:1A:24:C2:43:F0:A1:58:D0:A1:2C:19:08
a=setup:actpass
a=tls-id:7a25ab85b195acaf3121f5a8ab4f0f71
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.200 10200 typ host
a=candidate:1 1 udp 1845494015 198.51.100.200 11200 typ srflx
raddr 203.0.113.200 rport 10200
a=candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.200 12200 typ relay
raddr 198.51.100.200 rport 11200
a=end-of-candidates
m=application 12200 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.200
a=mid:d1
a=sctp-port:5000
a=max-message-size:65536
m=video 12200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103 104
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.200
a=mid:v1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=rtpmap:104 flexfec/90000
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:71317484-2ed4-49d7-9eb7-1414322a7aae
a=rid:1 send
a=rid:2 send
a=rid:3 send
a=simulcast:send 1;2;3
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
m=video 12200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103 104
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.200
a=mid:v2
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=rtpmap:104 flexfec/90000
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:81317484-2ed4-49d7-9eb7-1414322a7aae
The SDP for |answer-B2| is shown below. In addition to the
acceptance of the video m= sections, the use of a=recvonly to
indicate one-way video, and the use of a=imageattr to limit the
received resolution, note the use of setup:passive to maintain the
existing DTLS roles.
v=0
o=- 4962303333179871723 2 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 d1 v1 v2
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 12100 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.100
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:57017fee-b6c1-4162-929c-a25110252400
a=ice-ufrag:ATEn
a=ice-pwd:AtSK0WpNtpUjkY4+86js7ZQl
a=fingerprint:sha-256
29:E2:1C:3B:4B:9F:81:E6:B8:5C:F4:A5:A8:D8:73:04:
BB:05:2F:70:9F:04:A9:0E:05:E9:26:33:E8:70:88:A2
a=setup:passive
a=tls-id:17f0f4ba8a5f1213faca591b58ba52a7
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2113929471 203.0.113.100 10100 typ host
a=candidate:1 1 udp 1845494015 198.51.100.100 11100 typ srflx
raddr 203.0.113.100 rport 10100
a=candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.100 12100 typ relay
raddr 198.51.100.100 rport 11100
a=end-of-candidates
m=application 12100 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.100
a=mid:d1
a=sctp-port:5000
a=max-message-size:65536
m=video 12100 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.100
a=mid:v1
a=recvonly
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=imageattr:100 recv [x=[48:1920],y=[48:1080],q=1.0]
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
m=video 12100 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.100
a=mid:v2
a=recvonly
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=imageattr:100 recv [x=[48:1920],y=[48:1080],q=1.0]
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
7.3. Early Transport Warmup Example
This example demonstrates the early warmup technique described in
Section 4.1.8.1. Here, Alice's endpoint sends an offer to Bob's
endpoint to start an audio/video call. Bob immediately responds with
an answer that accepts the audio/video m= sections, but marks them as
sendonly (from his perspective), meaning that Alice will not yet send
media. This allows the JSEP implementation to start negotiating ICE
and DTLS immediately. Bob's endpoint then prompts him to answer the
call, and when he does, his endpoint sends a second offer which
enables the audio and video m= sections, and thereby bidirectional
media transmission. The advantage of such a flow is that as soon as
the first answer is received, the implementation can proceed with ICE
and DTLS negotiation and establish the session transport. If the
transport setup completes before the second offer is sent, then media
can be transmitted immediately by the callee immediately upon
answering the call, minimizing perceived post-dial-delay. The second
offer/answer exchange can also change the preferred codecs or other
session parameters.
This example also makes use of the "relay" ICE candidate policy
described in Section 3.5.3 to minimize the ICE gathering and checking
needed.
// set up local media state
AliceJS->AliceUA: create new PeerConnection with "relay" ICE policy
AliceJS->AliceUA: addTrack with two tracks: audio and video
AliceJS->AliceUA: createOffer to get |offer-C1|
AliceJS->AliceUA: setLocalDescription with |offer-C1|
// |offer-C1| is sent over signaling protocol to Bob
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-C1|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-C1|
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
// |offer-C1| arrives at Bob
BobJS->BobUA: create new PeerConnection with "relay" ICE policy
BobJS->BobUA: setRemoteDescription with |offer-C1|
BobUA->BobJS: ontrack events for audio and video
// a relay candidate is sent to Bob
AliceUA->AliceJS: onicecandidate (relay) |offer-C1-candidate-1|
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-C1-candidate-1|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |offer-C1-candidate-1|
BobJS->BobUA: addIceCandidate with |offer-C1-candidate-1|
// Bob prepares an early answer to warmup the transport
BobJS->BobUA: addTransceiver with null audio and video tracks
BobJS->BobUA: transceiver.setDirection(sendonly) for both
BobJS->BobUA: createAnswer
BobJS->BobUA: setLocalDescription with answer
// |answer-C1| is sent over signaling protocol to Alice
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-C1|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-C1|
// |answer-C1| (sendonly) arrives at Alice
AliceJS->AliceUA: setRemoteDescription with |answer-C1|
AliceUA->AliceJS: ontrack events for audio and video
// a relay candidate is sent to Alice
BobUA->BobJS: onicecandidate (relay) |answer-B1-candidate-1|
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-1|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |answer-B1-candidate-1|
AliceJS->AliceUA: addIceCandidate with |answer-B1-candidate-1|
// ICE and DTLS establish while call is ringing
// Bob accepts call, starts media, and sends new offer
BobJS->BobUA: transceiver.setTrack with audio and video tracks
BobUA->AliceUA: media sent from Bob to Alice
BobJS->BobUA: transceiver.setDirection(sendrecv) for both
transceivers
BobJS->BobUA: createOffer
BobJS->BobUA: setLocalDescription with offer
// |offer-C2| is sent over signaling protocol to Alice
BobJS->WebServer: signaling with |offer-C2|
WebServer->AliceJS: signaling with |offer-C2|
// |offer-C2| (sendrecv) arrives at Alice
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
AliceJS->AliceUA: setRemoteDescription with |offer-C2|
AliceJS->AliceUA: createAnswer
AliceJS->AliceUA: setLocalDescription with |answer-C2|
AliceUA->BobUA: media sent from Alice to Bob
// |answer-C2| is sent over signaling protocol to Bob
AliceJS->WebServer: signaling with |answer-C2|
WebServer->BobJS: signaling with |answer-C2|
BobJS->BobUA: setRemoteDescription with |answer-C2|
The SDP for |offer-C1| looks like:
v=0
o=- 1070771854436052752 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 v1
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:bbce3ba6-abfc-ac63-d00a-e15b286f8fce
a=ice-ufrag:4ZcD
a=ice-pwd:ZaaG6OG7tCn4J/lehAGz+HHD
a=fingerprint:sha-256
C4:68:F8:77:6A:44:F1:98:6D:7C:9F:47:EB:E3:34:A4:
0A:AA:2D:49:08:28:70:2E:1F:AE:18:7D:4E:3E:66:BF
a=setup:actpass
a=tls-id:9e5b948ade9c3d41de6617b68f769e55
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
m=video 0 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:v1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:bbce3ba6-abfc-ac63-d00a-e15b286f8fce
a=bundle-only
|offer-C1-candidate-1| looks like:
ufrag 4ZcD
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.100 12100 typ relay
raddr 0.0.0.0 rport 0
The SDP for |answer-C1| looks like:
v=0
o=- 6386516489780559513 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 v1
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:a1
a=sendonly
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:751f239e-4ae0-c549-aa3d-890de772998b
a=ice-ufrag:TpaA
a=ice-pwd:t2Ouhc67y8JcCaYZxUUTgKw/
a=fingerprint:sha-256
A2:F3:A5:6D:4C:8C:1E:B2:62:10:4A:F6:70:61:C4:FC:
3C:E0:01:D6:F3:24:80:74:DA:7C:3E:50:18:7B:CE:4D
a=setup:active
a=tls-id:55e967f86b7166ed14d3c9eda849b5e9
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
m=video 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=mid:v1
a=sendonly
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:751f239e-4ae0-c549-aa3d-890de772998b
|answer-C1-candidate-1| looks like:
ufrag TpaA
index 0
mid a1
attr candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.200 12200 typ relay
raddr 0.0.0.0 rport 0
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
The SDP for |offer-C2| looks like:
v=0
o=- 6386516489780559513 2 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 v1
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 12200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.200
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:751f239e-4ae0-c549-aa3d-890de772998b
a=ice-ufrag:TpaA
a=ice-pwd:t2Ouhc67y8JcCaYZxUUTgKw/
a=fingerprint:sha-256
A2:F3:A5:6D:4C:8C:1E:B2:62:10:4A:F6:70:61:C4:FC:
3C:E0:01:D6:F3:24:80:74:DA:7C:3E:50:18:7B:CE:4D
a=setup:actpass
a=tls-id:55e967f86b7166ed14d3c9eda849b5e9
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.200 12200 typ relay
raddr 0.0.0.0 rport 0
a=end-of-candidates
m=video 12200 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.200
a=mid:v1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:751f239e-4ae0-c549-aa3d-890de772998b
The SDP for |answer-C2| looks like:
v=0
o=- 1070771854436052752 2 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE a1 v1
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 12100 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 0 8 97 98
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.100
a=mid:a1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:96 opus/48000/2
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 telephone-event/48000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=fmtp:98 0-15
a=maxptime:120
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level
a=msid:bbce3ba6-abfc-ac63-d00a-e15b286f8fce
a=ice-ufrag:4ZcD
a=ice-pwd:ZaaG6OG7tCn4J/lehAGz+HHD
a=fingerprint:sha-256
C4:68:F8:77:6A:44:F1:98:6D:7C:9F:47:EB:E3:34:A4:
0A:AA:2D:49:08:28:70:2E:1F:AE:18:7D:4E:3E:66:BF
a=setup:passive
a=tls-id:9e5b948ade9c3d41de6617b68f769e55
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
a=candidate:1 1 udp 255 192.0.2.100 12100 typ relay
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
raddr 0.0.0.0 rport 0
a=end-of-candidates
m=video 12100 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 100 101 102 103
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.100
a=mid:v1
a=sendrecv
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
a=fmtp:101 packetization-mode=1;profile-level-id=42e01f
a=rtpmap:102 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:102 apt=100
=rtpmap:103 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:103 apt=101
a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=rtcp-fb:100 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack
a=rtcp-fb:100 nack pli
a=msid:bbce3ba6-abfc-ac63-d00a-e15b286f8fce
8. Security Considerations
The IETF has published separate documents
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] describing
the security architecture for WebRTC as a whole. The remainder of
this section describes security considerations for this document.
While formally the JSEP interface is an API, it is better to think of
it as an Internet protocol, with the application JavaScript being
untrustworthy from the perspective of the JSEP implementation. Thus,
the threat model of [RFC3552] applies. In particular, JavaScript can
call the API in any order and with any inputs, including malicious
ones. This is particularly relevant when we consider the SDP which
is passed to setLocalDescription(). While correct API usage requires
that the application pass in SDP which was derived from createOffer()
or createAnswer(), there is no guarantee that applications do so.
The JSEP implementation MUST be prepared for the JavaScript to pass
in bogus data instead.
Conversely, the application programmer needs to be aware that the
JavaScript does not have complete control of endpoint behavior. One
case that bears particular mention is that editing ICE candidates out
of the SDP or suppressing trickled candidates does not have the
expected behavior: implementations will still perform checks from
those candidates even if they are not sent to the other side. Thus,
for instance, it is not possible to prevent the remote peer from
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
learning your public IP address by removing server reflexive
candidates. Applications which wish to conceal their public IP
address should instead configure the ICE agent to use only relay
candidates.
9. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions from IANA.
10. Acknowledgements
Harald Alvestrand, Taylor Brandstetter, Suhas Nandakumar, and Peter
Thatcher provided significant text for this draft. Bernard Aboba,
Adam Bergkvist, Dan Burnett, Ben Campbell, Alissa Cooper, Richard
Ejzak, Stefan Hakansson, Ted Hardie, Christer Holmberg Andrew Hutton,
Randell Jesup, Matthew Kaufman, Anant Narayanan, Adam Roach, Robert
Sparks, Neil Stratford, Martin Thomson, Sean Turner, and Magnus
Westerlund all provided valuable feedback on this proposal.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rid]
Roach, A., Nandakumar, S., and P. Thatcher, "RTP Stream
Identifier Source Description (SDES)", draft-ietf-avtext-
rid-09 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ice-trickle]
Ivov, E., Rescorla, E., Uberti, J., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for
the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
Protocol", draft-ietf-ice-trickle-21 (work in progress),
April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp]
Holmberg, C. and R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol
(SDP) Offer/Answer Considerations for Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) and Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-32 (work in progress), October
2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp]
Petit-Huguenin, M., Nandakumar, S., and A. Keranen,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer
procedures for Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE)", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-24 (work in
progress), November 2018.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid]
Alvestrand, H., "WebRTC MediaStream Identification in the
Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-msid-17
(work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive]
Holmberg, C., "Indicating Exclusive Support of RTP/RTCP
Multiplexing using SDP", draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-
exclusive-12 (work in progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid]
Roach, A., "RTP Payload Format Restrictions", draft-ietf-
mmusic-rid-15 (work in progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]
Holmberg, C., Shpount, R., Loreto, S., and G. Camarillo,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer
Procedures For Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport.",
draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-26 (work in progress), April
2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
negotiation-54 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
Multiplexing", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-17
(work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast]
Burman, B., Westerlund, M., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty,
"Using Simulcast in SDP and RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
mmusic-sdp-simulcast-13 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-fec]
Uberti, J., "WebRTC Forward Error Correction
Requirements", draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]
Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time
Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26 (work in progress), March
2016.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-security-11 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", draft-ietf-
rtcweb-security-arch-18 (work in progress), February 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC3605] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3605>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC3890] Westerlund, M., "A Transport Independent Bandwidth
Modifier for the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
RFC 3890, DOI 10.17487/RFC3890, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3890>.
[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in
the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4145, September 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4145>.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
[RFC5285] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
Header Extensions", RFC 5285, DOI 10.17487/RFC5285, July
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5285>.
[RFC5761] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5761>.
[RFC5888] Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5888, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5888>.
[RFC6236] Johansson, I. and K. Jung, "Negotiation of Generic Image
Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
RFC 6236, DOI 10.17487/RFC6236, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6236>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC6716] Valin, JM., Vos, K., and T. Terriberry, "Definition of the
Opus Audio Codec", RFC 6716, DOI 10.17487/RFC6716,
September 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6716>.
[RFC6904] Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6904>.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
[RFC7160] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Zorn, Ed., "Support for Multiple
Clock Rates in an RTP Session", RFC 7160,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7160, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7160>.
[RFC7587] Spittka, J., Vos, K., and JM. Valin, "RTP Payload Format
for the Opus Speech and Audio Codec", RFC 7587,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7587, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7587>.
[RFC7742] Roach, A., "WebRTC Video Processing and Codec
Requirements", RFC 7742, DOI 10.17487/RFC7742, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7742>.
[RFC7850] Nandakumar, S., "Registering Values of the SDP 'proto'
Field for Transporting RTP Media over TCP under Various
RTP Profiles", RFC 7850, DOI 10.17487/RFC7850, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7850>.
[RFC7874] Valin, JM. and C. Bran, "WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing
Requirements", RFC 7874, DOI 10.17487/RFC7874, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7874>.
[RFC8108] Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, Q., and C. Perkins,
"Sending Multiple RTP Streams in a Single RTP Session",
RFC 8108, DOI 10.17487/RFC8108, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8108>.
[RFC8122] Lennox, J. and C. Holmberg, "Connection-Oriented Media
Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8122, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8122>.
[RFC8445] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip]
Ivov, E., Stach, T., Marocco, E., and C. Holmberg, "A
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Usage for Incremental
Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (Trickle ICE)", draft-ietf-
mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-18 (work in progress), June 2018.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling]
Uberti, J., "WebRTC IP Address Handling Requirements",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11 (work in progress),
November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-sdp]
Nandakumar, S. and C. Jennings, "Annotated Example SDP for
WebRTC", draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp-11 (work in progress),
October 2018.
[RFC3389] Zopf, R., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
Comfort Noise (CN)", RFC 3389, DOI 10.17487/RFC3389,
September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3389>.
[RFC3556] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth",
RFC 3556, DOI 10.17487/RFC3556, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3556>.
[RFC3960] Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "Early Media and Ringing
Tone Generation in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3960, DOI 10.17487/RFC3960, December 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3960>.
[RFC4568] Andreasen, F., Baugher, M., and D. Wing, "Session
Description Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions for Media
Streams", RFC 4568, DOI 10.17487/RFC4568, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4568>.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.
[RFC4733] Schulzrinne, H. and T. Taylor, "RTP Payload for DTMF
Digits, Telephony Tones, and Telephony Signals", RFC 4733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4733, December 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4733>.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10.17487/RFC5576, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.
[RFC5763] Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Framework
for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", RFC 5763, DOI 10.17487/RFC5763, May
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5763>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC6464] Lennox, J., Ed., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-
Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6464, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6464>.
[RFC6544] Rosenberg, J., Keranen, A., Lowekamp, B., and A. Roach,
"TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, DOI 10.17487/RFC6544,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544>.
[TS26.114]
3GPP TS 26.114 V12.8.0, "3rd Generation Partnership
Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System
Aspects; IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Multimedia
Telephony; Media handling and interaction (Release 12)",
December 2014, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/26114.htm>.
[W3C.webrtc]
Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Jennings, C., Narayanan, A.,
Aboba, B., and T. Brandstetter, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time
Communication Between Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium
WD WD-webrtc-20170515, May 2017,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-webrtc-20170515/>.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Appendix A. Appendix A
For the syntax validation performed in Section 5.8, the following
list of ABNF definitions is used:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
+------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Attribute | Reference |
+------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| ptime | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| maxptime | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| rtpmap | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| recvonly | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| sendrecv | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| sendonly | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| inactive | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| framerate | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| fmtp | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| quality | [RFC4566] Section 9 |
| rtcp | [RFC3605] Section 2.1 |
| setup | [RFC4145] Sections 3, 4, and 5 |
| connection | [RFC4145] Sections 3, 4, and 5 |
| fingerprint | [RFC8122] Section 5 |
| rtcp-fb | [RFC4585] Section 4.2 |
| extmap | [RFC5285] Section 7 |
| mid | [RFC5888] Sections 4 and 5 |
| group | [RFC5888] Sections 4 and 5 |
| imageattr | [RFC6236] Section 3.1 |
| extmap (encrypt | [RFC6904] Section 4 |
| option) | |
| candidate | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] Section |
| | 4.1 |
| remote-candidates | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] Section |
| | 4.2 |
| ice-lite | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] Section |
| | 4.3 |
| ice-ufrag | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] Section |
| | 4.4 |
| ice-pwd | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] Section |
| | 4.4 |
| ice-options | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] Section |
| | 4.6 |
| msid | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid] Section 2 |
| rid | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] Section 10 |
| simulcast | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast] Section |
| | 6.1 |
| tls-id | [I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp] Section 4 |
+------------------------+------------------------------------------+
Table 1: SDP ABNF References
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Appendix B. Change log
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.
Changes in draft-26:
o Update guidance on generation of the m= proto value to be
consistent with ice-sip-sdp.
Changes in draft-25:
o Remove MSID track ID from offers and answers.
o Add note about rejecting all m= sections in a BUNDLE group.
o Update ICE references to RFC 8445 and mention ice2.
Changes in draft-24:
o Clarify that rounding is permitted when trying to maintain aspect
ratio.
o Update tls-id handling to match what is specified in dtls-sdp.
Changes in draft-23:
o Clarify rollback handling, and treat it similarly to other
setLocal/setRemote usages.
o Adopt a first-fit policy for handling multiple remote a=imageattr
attributes.
o Clarify that a session description with zero m= sections is legal.
Changes in draft-22:
o Clarify currentDirection versus direction.
o Correct session-id text so that it aligns with RFC 3264.
o Clarify that generated ICE candidate objects must have all four
fields.
o Make rollback work from any state besides stable and regardless of
whether setLocalDescription or setRemoteDescription is used.
o Allow modifying SDP before sending or after receiving either
offers or answers (previously this was forbidden for answers).
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Provide rationale for several design choices.
Changes in draft-21:
o Change dtls-id to tls-id to match MMUSIC draft.
o Replace regular expression for proto field with a list and clarify
that the answer must exactly match the offer.
o Remove text about how to error check on setLocal because local
descriptions cannot be changed.
o Rework silence suppression support to always require that both
sides agree to silence suppression or none is used.
o Remove instructions to parse "a=ssrc-group".
o Allow the addition of new codecs in answers and in subsequent
offers.
o Clarify imageattr processing. Replace use of [x=0,y=0] with
direction indicators.
o Document when early media can occur.
o Fix ICE default port handling when bundle-only is used.
o Forbid duplicating IDENTICAL/TRANSPORT attributes when you are
bundling.
o Clarify the number of components to gather when bundle is
involved.
o Explicitly state that PTs and SSRCs are to be used for demuxing.
o Update guidance on "a=setup" line. This should now match the
MMUSIC draft.
o Update guidance on certificate/digest matching to conform to
RFC8122.
o Update examples.
Changes in draft-20:
o Remove Appendix-B.
Changes in draft-19:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Examples are now machine-generated for correctness, and use IETF-
approved example IP addresses.
o Add early transport warmup example, and add missing attributes to
existing examples.
o Only send "a=rtcp-mux-only" and "a=bundle-only" on new m=
sections.
o Update references.
o Add coverage of a=identity.
o Explain the lipsync group algorithm more thoroughly.
o Remove unnecessary list of MTI specs.
o Allow codecs which weren't offered to appear in answers and which
weren't selected to appear in subsequent offers.
o Codec preferences now are applied on both initial and subsequent
offers and answers.
o Clarify a=msid handling for recvonly m= sections.
o Clarify behavior of attributes for bundle-only data channels.
o Allow media attributes to appear in data m= sections when all the
media m= sections are bundle-only.
o Use consistent terminology for JSEP implementations.
o Describe how to handle failed API calls.
o Some cleanup on routing rules.
Changes in draft-18:
o Update demux algorithm and move it to an appendix in preparation
for merging it into BUNDLE.
o Clarify why we can't handle an incoming offer to send simulcast.
o Expand IceCandidate object text.
o Further document use of ICE candidate pool.
o Document removeTrack.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 107]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Update requirements to only accept the last generated offer/answer
as an argument to setLocalDescription.
o Allow round pixels.
o Fix code around default timing when AVPF is not specified.
o Clean up terminology around m= line and m=section.
o Provide a more realistic example for minimum decoder capabilities.
o Document behavior when rtcp-mux policy is require but rtcp-mux
attribute not provided.
o Expanded discussion of RtpSender and RtpReceiver.
o Add RtpTransceiver.currentDirection and document setDirection.
o Require imageattr x=0, y=0 to indicate that there are no valid
resolutions.
o Require a privacy-preserving MID/RID construction.
o Require support for RFC 3556 bandwidth modifiers.
o Update maxptime description.
o Note that endpoints may encounter extra codecs in answers and
subsequent offers from non-JSEP peers.
o Update references.
Changes in draft-17:
o Split createOffer and createAnswer sections to clearly indicate
attributes which always appear and which only appear when not
bundled into another m= section.
o Add descriptions of RtpTransceiver methods.
o Describe how to process RTCP feedback attributes.
o Clarify transceiver directions and their interaction with 3264.
o Describe setCodecPreferences.
o Update RTP demux algorithm. Include RTCP.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 108]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Update requirements for when a=rtcp is included, limiting to cases
where it is needed for backward compatibility.
o Clarify SAR handling.
o Updated addTrack matching algorithm.
o Remove a=ssrc requirements.
o Handle a=setup in reoffers.
o Discuss how RTX/FEC should be handled.
o Discuss how telephone-event should be handled.
o Discuss how CN/DTX should be handled.
o Add missing references to ABNF table.
Changes in draft-16:
o Update addIceCandidate to indicate ICE generation and allow per-m=
section end-of-candidates.
o Update fingerprint handling to use draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update.
o Update text around SDP processing of RTP header extensions and
payload formats.
o Add sections on simulcast, addTransceiver, and createDataChannel.
o Clarify text to ensure that the session ID is a positive 63 bit
integer.
o Clarify SDP processing for direction indication.
o Describe SDP processing for rtcp-mux-only.
o Specify how SDP session version in o= line.
o Require that when doing an re-offer, the capabilities of the new
session are mostly required to be a subset of the previously
negotiated session.
o Clarified ICE restart interaction with bundle-only.
o Remove support for changing SDP before calling
setLocalDescription.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 109]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Specify algorithm for demuxing RTP based on MID, PT, and SSRC.
o Clarify rules for rejecting m= lines when bundle policy is
balanced or max-bundle.
Changes in draft-15:
o Clarify text around codecs offered in subsequent transactions to
refer to what's been negotiated.
o Rewrite LS handling text to indicate edge cases and that we're
living with them.
o Require that answerer reject m= lines when there are no codecs in
common.
o Enforce max-bundle on offer processing.
o Fix TIAS formula to handle bits vs. kilobits.
o Describe addTrack algorithm.
o Clean up references.
Changes in draft-14:
o Added discussion of RtpTransceivers + RtpSenders + RtpReceivers,
and how they interact with createOffer/createAnswer.
o Removed obsolete OfferToReceiveX options.
o Explained how addIceCandidate can be used for end-of-candidates.
Changes in draft-13:
o Clarified which SDP lines can be ignored.
o Clarified how to handle various received attributes.
o Revised how attributes should be generated for bundled m= lines.
o Remove unused references.
o Remove text advocating use of unilateral PTs.
o Trigger an ICE restart even if the ICE candidate policy is being
made more strict.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 110]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Remove the 'public' ICE candidate policy.
o Move open issues into GitHub issues.
o Split local/remote description accessors into current/pending.
o Clarify a=imageattr handling.
o Add more detail on VoiceActivityDetection handling.
o Reference draft-shieh-rtcweb-ip-handling.
o Make it clear when an ICE restart should occur.
o Resolve changes needed in references.
o Remove MSID semantics.
o ice-options are now at session level.
o Default RTCP mux policy is now 'require'.
Changes in draft-12:
o Filled in sections on applying local and remote descriptions.
o Discussed downscaling and upscaling to fulfill imageattr
requirements.
o Updated what SDP can be modified by the application.
o Updated to latest datachannel SDP.
o Allowed multiple fingerprint lines.
o Switched back to IPv4 for dummy candidates.
o Added additional clarity on ICE default candidates.
Changes in draft-11:
o Clarified handling of RTP CNAMEs.
o Updated what SDP lines should be processed or ignored.
o Specified how a=imageattr should be used.
Changes in draft-10:
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 111]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Described video size negotiation with imageattr.
o Clarified rejection of sections that do not have mux-only.
o Add handling of LS groups
Changes in draft-09:
o Don't return null for {local,remote}Description after close().
o Changed TCP/TLS to UDP/DTLS in RTP profile names.
o Separate out bundle and mux policy.
o Added specific references to FEC mechanisms.
o Added canTrickle mechanism.
o Added section on subsequent answers and, answer options.
o Added text defining set{Local,Remote}Description behavior.
Changes in draft-08:
o Added new example section and removed old examples in appendix.
o Fixed <proto> field handling.
o Added text describing a=rtcp attribute.
o Reworked handling of OfferToReceiveAudio and OfferToReceiveVideo
per discussion at IETF 90.
o Reworked trickle ICE handling and its impact on m= and c= lines
per discussion at interim.
o Added max-bundle-and-rtcp-mux policy.
o Added description of maxptime handling.
o Updated ICE candidate pool default to 0.
o Resolved open issues around AppID/receiver-ID.
o Reworked and expanded how changes to the ICE configuration are
handled.
o Some reference updates.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 112]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Editorial clarification.
Changes in draft-07:
o Expanded discussion of VAD and Opus DTX.
o Added a security considerations section.
o Rewrote the section on modifying SDP to require implementations to
clearly indicate whether any given modification is allowed.
o Clarified impact of IceRestart on CreateOffer in local-offer
state.
o Guidance on whether attributes should be defined at the media
level or the session level.
o Renamed "default" bundle policy to "balanced".
o Removed default ICE candidate pool size and clarify how it works.
o Defined a canonical order for assignment of MSTs to m= lines.
o Removed discussion of rehydration.
o Added Eric Rescorla as a draft editor.
o Cleaned up references.
o Editorial cleanup
Changes in draft-06:
o Reworked handling of m= line recycling.
o Added handling of BUNDLE and bundle-only.
o Clarified handling of rollback.
o Added text describing the ICE Candidate Pool and its behavior.
o Allowed OfferToReceiveX to create multiple recvonly m= sections.
Changes in draft-05:
o Fixed several issues identified in the createOffer/Answer sections
during document review.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 113]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
o Updated references.
Changes in draft-04:
o Filled in sections on createOffer and createAnswer.
o Added SDP examples.
o Fixed references.
Changes in draft-03:
o Added text describing relationship to W3C specification
Changes in draft-02:
o Converted from nroff
o Removed comparisons to old approaches abandoned by the working
group
o Removed stuff that has moved to W3C specification
o Align SDP handling with W3C draft
o Clarified section on forking.
Changes in draft-01:
o Added diagrams for architecture and state machine.
o Added sections on forking and rehydration.
o Clarified meaning of "pranswer" and "answer".
o Reworked how ICE restarts and media directions are controlled.
o Added list of parameters that can be changed in a description.
o Updated suggested API and examples to match latest thinking.
o Suggested API and examples have been moved to an appendix.
Changes in draft -00:
o Migrated from draft-uberti-rtcweb-jsep-02.
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 114]
Internet-Draft JSEP February 2019
Authors' Addresses
Justin Uberti
Google
747 6th St S
Kirkland, WA 98033
USA
Email: justin@uberti.name
Cullen Jennings
Cisco
400 3rd Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 4H2
Canada
Email: fluffy@iii.ca
Eric Rescorla (editor)
Mozilla
331 Evelyn Ave
Mountain View, CA 94041
USA
Email: ekr@rtfm.com
Uberti, et al. Expires August 31, 2019 [Page 115]
