Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net> Thu, 13 February 2014 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
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 B31081A0544 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:32:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 TsPECEW8idsQ for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x236.google.com (mail-vb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E311A0547 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id w20so8703481vbb.13 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crocodilertc.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=N5LRZ1gsGaDxNHRJphc61c7apPQfBZzTFjks5GnQGi8=; b=BDTZ/yhrYAau1rhy0cRjJu1N81Ao8k7FEatd/VTsVFwwoYUORBv0q7Xg5u5Eub3WRq lQI1RPYzB7/LX7/OgQ7+bfhbAsUgqQVTDAOj9opE9dMHPvYdqnqBrSuuREgoCoUGe7kJ K0obnFTP+O3RzUO1TIyUHyFnfcHnMM/B9USHk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=N5LRZ1gsGaDxNHRJphc61c7apPQfBZzTFjks5GnQGi8=; b=hHm/UIVCaiAjJqqyX5Q1sxXDLcYibCUuFGYir7ugKHYg+BD/6VddNl9tARcnqGqg0p 3QGbdSGGf1GzFx+TcSBybAlgYoSRMvkyd1jXMJaCqt6CT72ixlcAmzJ+07ICLttVmOAv LYXiyD9a5UH+GpnvlOQrXzXs9WwNROdDjtQOGWxYDlWiRbdRVtwTaGMsMaRiKkDxhzq7 vmZr+w22whO8dzHeEC//bGMmZX0gFh10UBCXgN8WOp0y/ugBIav+ZwVOmHB0D1yrkXw3 953N9AtrNhowjtOH7h9zz3xpTFqLYUjrifNFsnKSQD5T7KP2naGKsQGeWZgZQbRi5J63 lIIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkddyo9nfAhVa6wbG8yOTkbANKO1FsVBS4RZGoFsIzPUwbMGeriKN4sRDUpj/MLC8XXaECo
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.53.0.230 with SMTP id bb6mr1268369vdd.39.1392327146380; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.187.114 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52FD3883.6050402@gmail.com>
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> <CAEqTk6TzODAWjpqJPRp_zfGcYm_MLHAvU57sq9h7njpifWiufg@mail.gmail.com> <52FD3883.6050402@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:32:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEqTk6RERBdfkhNc=70n57ADa0=CxVLekFedgRDVdrvx0mWjyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
To: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133f56ef8b5be04f2506c51
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Lnu2AS_psqt8k6m_b0V-2oDsHj0
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 21:32:30 -0000

My point was more that if we are going to have a discussion about how we
refer to WebSockets (in SDP or elsewhere) then let's have it, but let's
also keep it separate from a reopening of the WebSockets vs DataChannel
discussion.

Which is the right transport (WebSockets/DataChannel) is a use-case
specific thing.  I don't see the need for any sort of "beauty contest" as
this is more like the difference between using TCP vs UDP - some things
work on both and some are better suited to one than the other.  Why would
we having this "contest" at all, it just doesn't make sense to me.  Some
things will be on WebSockets, some things will be on DataChannel, some
things will be on both, and what is wrong with that?



On 13 February 2014 21:26, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> El 13/02/2014 22:01, Peter Dunkley escribió:
>
>  Hello,
>>
>> Wasn't Sergio's point about what the terminology (for example, within
>> SDP) should be rather than whether WebSockets is appropriate as a transport
>> or not?  And isn't this a totally separate issue from the WebSockets vs.
>> WebRTC question?
>>
>
> Yes and no. My point was that all "X over websockets" will have some
> common issues, so instead of having the same discussion every time, it
> would be better if we could address them once and for all, so when someone
> wants to propose a new "X", it does not have to spend time and effort on
> that issues.
>
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>



-- 
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd