Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 14 February 2014 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@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 673821A02A3 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, 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 Ij5v2wClMsDm for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22c.google.com (mail-yh0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F0B1A017F for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yh0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f73so12014761yha.31 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4wu8fBi+LATw4xZ5sZXZtI1Zj9g794Wf794PSSWigLQ=; b=H3RBoTGQA+fL91HmHjJd1N5zvbFhSjFp9eSSR4o4ye2YWSM3Vq3LiBYm/DfY1OnGVC 6CUX/mi6vxeibeaKNmKXkvsoqWjQqBMPtlIWApViQp/tApbA8TLdJrMVFAmrzG6bThI/ /bokM8dOvv5WPZb1UTWC02T4GtqTuR3o3+WEu+DWL3O0HPmfpK7XzJ737peXV9054hfw 7vcPdLZYQhqLZji8lc9eoctYNx7Gu8lCGBDoSoiEAW3fQL5wZ7pZwYPQrVnEp3aQdbNu Q6rCLRYIMRUXJlMwVOYt9AKCGO/ejTFpnj1FVmkRSi3IxRkSMlT6EUMo6LeEWMW7ZbSs y1iw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.4.67 with SMTP id 43mr8608971yhi.9.1392398842264; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.150.2 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52FE4B75.5040408@alum.mit.edu>
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> <CAHBDyN7nUrUDRCHT5HXfqroPD=5WPSE+yUvFhy4BLTdYTYm-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <52FE4B75.5040408@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:27:22 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN7Tj6TYyezRs_OOMK+aKM2ikhoQub3EDv=rV+HLm6GzjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11348dbe61022804f2611e4d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/o3GSU6NgVIHlRtQe0a2oQ2E-J6E
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:27:26 -0000

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>wrote;wrote:

> On 2/13/14 5:02 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>> This topic has previously been raised (a year ago and periodically since
>> then):
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04693.html
>>
>> The suggestion was to have a "foo" over websocket discussion on the RAI
>> list (which is really a lonely and largely ignored mailing list) but no
>> one has taken that up:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04749.html
>>
>> Also, no one has put forth a concrete proposal to deal with it and we
>> don't do work unless someones willing to put in the cycles.
>>
>> Thus, these work items have been trickling in (and out).  Since they are
>> deemed useful in some contexts (and not harmful), they've been moving
>> forward.  But, it certainly would be good for someone to put in some
>> cycles to define a model and some guidelines for using websockets for
>> any number of RAI protocols.
>>
>
> Mary,
>
> I don't know how to distinguish what belongs on the RAI list vs. the
> dispatch list. But I have a perception that the dispatch list has a greater
> following.
>
[MB] It was the ADs that suggested the topic was to be discussed on the RAI
list. But, you are absolutely correct, there are about 200 more people on
the DISPATCH list. However, as I regularly state there are some periodic
discussions on the RAI list that are also of interest so folks really
should consider subscribing to that one:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
For example, Gonzalo started a RAI process discussion a while back:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai/current/msg01372.html
And, Richard posted an important reminder note about deadlines for IETF-89:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai/current/msg01430.html

BTW, it's a Friday (today!) for the first time that I can recall in case
anyone was thinking it was another Monday deadline as usual.

I think in one sense, we've ended up with DISPATCH serving as a RAI Area WG
since we don't have the latter.  This "new" process has now been in place
for 5 years, so maybe it is time to reconsider how the area is organized.
 But, of course that discussion should happen on the RAI list and involve
the ADs ;)

[/MB]

>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>
>  Mary.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo
>> <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com
>> <mailto:sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>> 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?
>>
>>     Best regards
>>     Sergio
>>
>>
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     dispatch mailing list
>>     dispatch@ietf.org <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/dispatch
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>