Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
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 201D71A04E0 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:28:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zwwQNStKfws3 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D491A04DD for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn9so9236035wib.6 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:28:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+e9t/SFu94/Szl58Lnze6FiI/7oo3KN/CcnAHlLkGvM=; b=IpM5eRQPmplswAZH/bHhxkP+iHVhFHJw31+vX6WEyrFZh5bxzzypafTWdCLfUmCHUR GD9lS+ayxJkx2U3HdUltwfoKBFEYhcG2lgWDwL0yWZ/7dQ6sOSBrPP8ZD0xT5MVdxKVB ddY8V64Jg2ZyD5gujLqif7KYRkBznY2Ow2kIuqCwaMD63fy8gcxf4wJgEo88U7QcjaNP jBLPsTG82vFngI8JD1UDhu6rn03n3iyIUVM1SvF8LWdvl5EZM5rJIE3sMw7XfFsASVS0 p9Fp2hqmh5uivkX8/Nd5NHfPAdZZ8R3fuIr1hUipOrRyz1CY1Bt4Qbq1Fb5pw4ddhyGZ vvMQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.73.173 with SMTP id m13mr8013689wiv.52.1392323298337; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:28:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.192] ([95.61.111.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t6sm16495628wix.4.2014.02.13.12.28.16 for <dispatch@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:28:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:28:16 +0100
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; 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>
In-Reply-To: <52FD112B.5040209@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/PNTgYwblUu614C1F5gonYdTa7ww
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 20:28:22 -0000

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?

Best regards
Sergio