[dispatch] X over websockets

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 13 February 2014 18:38 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 992141A0392 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:38:45 -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 YnpV9tNn-S6Y for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:38:44 -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 598FF1A03EB for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Rpdv1n0020cZkys5Dued0B; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:38:37 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Rueb1n01c3ZTu2S3WuecGH; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:38:37 +0000
Message-ID: <52FD112B.5040209@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:35 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ag07bPBHzODTWGKFrKE00nO_wiMgRv2GEwUpGCiH25-Xf2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1392316717; bh=+SUPlwdsz611G1iur5g1LEwZz3erJ1omhxPAv1o1w4Q=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=G/J6nMDtctPz8fQq4nFW2PiZhXvGqmIkxJy30AZVbiTFfl6h3bYLoX6sbEUQApaIe 4iQCWJU+jUuLmuKsD/ph6aqN44jEhcjmasZ5kc+5bKj9lq2yqMat2PIb9B3qlUQmPJ 24BJLmEC0lozAcxLW55F+3jmkeysNa4P/fOE2CkNa9vjNMGYohwRM5VJ86Aw3IwsWy YA//yuiu6r008EqJC8RzBOcsuJ5s+LjxHlG2qBsl/pM4ClYjwNjvukBqTZJgUkcmsa zIUtHTHsAZI+dyoK+rX1qU72zMtTMDbWWjXaVoaHPeGcU0jztZt1pIdL+oQLhsmQfe T32oBxu7pbOTw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/OuU-WagtecSF6dFu9z8zcxFBKKM
Subject: [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 18:38:45 -0000

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?

	Thanks,
	Paul