Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 21:26 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 238761A053D for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:26:33 -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 0h77OsSLaZ_l for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:26:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69621A0534 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q58so7899862wes.7 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:26:29 -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=seMW03MAplgt30Dtv2Ys/2emVAqCfPMIR93f/w/uZMY=; b=nPnvCtOlfn9vLOVvjqVEsCBNzRv1LOniQXLYrUcuCCT7go2TrMn1n9xli5Lhyf5EcP yFFHJLl3rLECls+WnZkj9/utwhM7P2fdsdlfzqEQN3xxY8pnQz4/OB8lfGhbuN5WHIO2 hLGw3msgJ0QZsJJKx+iHHd/1KM6w9zyjGryjT1rk3H7sAc2OXyiYlTmZKLE7QUuG2JPf lzIXkonHw62DxO6tPCAFHxXGkVmqbZV84GqtCJ+f7fVKN/Z1wjUirSYu/mrqxQGdP8Z1 rhKFOsgXSEvRDfSKaTQSqg9QrxLbJOwzafdh7fxYWegemSU8/HelAIww20orCiNgCKVy JaBA==
X-Received: by 10.194.110.135 with SMTP id ia7mr3130831wjb.5.1392326789128; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.192] ([95.61.111.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ff9sm16832727wib.11.2014.02.13.13.26.27 for <dispatch@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52FD3883.6050402@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:26:27 +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> <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com> <CAEqTk6TzODAWjpqJPRp_zfGcYm_MLHAvU57sq9h7njpifWiufg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEqTk6TzODAWjpqJPRp_zfGcYm_MLHAvU57sq9h7njpifWiufg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Y6EiVFOPVBq8HEAIiCB-oCMuSH0
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 21:26:33 -0000

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