Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 13 February 2014 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B771A040C for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:57:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jz3w_RNpzJYx for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85B01A0283 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.51]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Rpit1n00116LCl05DwxQYB; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:57:24 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id RwxQ1n00V3ZTu2S3SwxQ4c; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:57:24 +0000
Message-ID: <52FD31B4.1060204@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:57:24 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dispatch@ietf.org
References: <20131213005747.777.34301.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBDyN4tSRO_nYy7_-V4xfmDbF0ZeLJ24_fEOQ1p9Z2BvJyinQ@mail.gmail.com> <97B47463-42D2-4BA9-AC2F-DF8C67702DDC@cisco.com> <52FCE70C.1030608@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN7hySvbiJYnvRXDQ2ZS_FYFDMaODXBDRarE6DhRwC=fHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07bPBHzODTWGKFrKE00nO_wiMgRv2GEwUpGCiH25-Xf2Cw@mail.gmail.com> <52FD112B.5040209@alum.mit.edu> <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1392325044; bh=2YotZqM/Al7/4F41Qy+pt7BPXTJ6SmrwbJLnpysgKgs=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=VYj0CZGWqSKXpZhzmvZsiRcZp6FX+Rai1zr1eB1FzDRBEaOENdfIgzIuRkCTrRawj dHaOQTNJ5EOhM68+IGpXhXeaLcBQ5nH8Nvj7M5Ij1xI8mUvm9ddicxclJiTd/Tolyp aZir/iOk7cLIjGIXMcSRspYd+azbiEMAgEl1izIRAUOLKGCPxmVOgwrMXuf+uyOt+K wgZGyb2xMsEVZ9J6Zbl/vV951MYSjyQO+GKJBQkPEM1lBfaNXhqN2WK9m1+GfCIi8D PsCyQ2mGDupSHqrlpCQRpt5y0Kh03LtvrlxQkxQHXL5Gk09brvcVFNyYRsed2TdOUL LagZHCsP3ffxQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/0dZdM1g8lRC3OzoBu0GdYKr6uUk
Subject: Re: [dispatch] X over websockets
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:57:27 -0000

On 2/13/14 3:28 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
> El 13/02/2014 19:38, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>> On 2/13/14 11:07 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
>>> What I mean is that I expect quite a lot of "over websocekts" drafts and
>>> we should try to use the same solution for advertising it in the SDP,
>>> and not have each one have their own way of handling it.
>>
>> Sigh. Yes, once we had the first of these, it was only a matter of
>> time before the flood began.
>>
>> What concerns me is that for every "X over websockets" there is
>> probably also a good argument for "X over WebRTC Data Channel".
>>
>> Are we going to let that happen?
>>
>> Or for each X are we going to have a beauty contest between websockets
>> and data channel?
>>
>> Or what?
>
> Completely agree, we should try to "close" that discussion once and for
> all and not have the same arguments and discussions in each draft. I am
> not really aware of the IETF process, but could be possible to create a
> draft to address it?

It's kind of late to do anything about it before the draft cutoff.

Continuing to discuss here on the dispatch list isn't such a bad way to 
start out. Then maybe some hallway discussion in London.

After that, maybe a draft for dispatch or RAI Area would be helpful.

If we wanted to do both for everything, then ISTM that some of the 
mapping can be the same for websockets and data channel. The part that 
is hard to unify is the SDP negotiation. Could we come up with some 
approach where doing these is easy and consistent?

	Thanks,
	Paul