Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00.txt

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 08 May 2013 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF2321F85EF; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x87e0g4UoGqY; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE24821F85CC; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0243A39E18D; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:05:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j2ifBMiQxOAS; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:05:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC45939E062; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:05:36 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <518A236F.6060909@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 12:05:35 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <20130503054601.4639.64651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALe60zAi_Lx3QFCbBQ5aPNkgorJAff0E79jkpbQX1Qt3wf2bzg@mail.gmail.com>, <CAOJ7v-1Wk6u7XiYrNVmoqr5Jisu2WRvZpte7hQTOiP8YHUc6hg@mail.gmail.com>, <008701ce4b21$a0997aa0$e1cc6fe0$@gmail.com>, <518900CF.6050403@alvestrand.no> <BLU169-W108984F1E5A706E919E7BD693BA0@phx.gbl>, <00d701ce4b74$cc846000$658d2000$@gmail.com> <BLU169-W4FC780EB5DC8650032D6093BA0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W4FC780EB5DC8650032D6093BA0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080302090407080003090203"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 10:05:47 -0000

On 05/08/2013 01:07 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Roni said:
> "If the purpose of this draft and Adam’s one are to describe how to do 
> things in RTCweb it should be discussed in RTCWEB. And we will need a 
> similar one in CLUE probably in draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping."
>
> [BA] There are RTP issues to discuss (e.g. draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping 
> relationship to draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage), and there are SDP 
> issues.  To date, I believe we have somewhat neglected the RTP 
> discussion, which is unfortunate, because if all the time is spent 
> talking about the SDP Hammer, then the inclination is to use it to 
> pound every nail, and if there is no SDP, then we have no tools at all.

I felt that the discussion of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage was largely 
uncontroversial in the Stockholm interim, and that not much further 
discussion of that level of the stack was needed - so I have not been 
worrying much about it after that.

It's more like we've got the RTP nail in place, and are hammering on it 
with the SDP hammer... if we were to use an axe instead (hopefully the 
back end of it), not much in RTP would change.

>
> The place for the RTP discussion is probably not in RTCWEB (more like 
> AVTCORE).
>
>
I think we've already done most of the discussion needed in AVTCORE - we 
seem to have the dictum of "don't send audio and video on the same 
5-tuple" changed to "if you send audio and video on the same 5-tuple, 
here's what you need to consider", which was really the only critical 
*change* I saw in RTP-land.

>