Re: [MMUSIC] M-line philosophy (Re: Wisdom sought: Prioritization of codecs)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 11/19/2012 05:24 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 11/19/12 10:04, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 04:38 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There are, at the moment, 176 attributes in the IANA registry that 
>>> are applicable to m= sections:
>>> ...
>>> Some of these are applicable to the RTP session; others only make 
>>> sense as applied to a single media stream.
>> And some make absolutely no sense at all in the RTCWEB context.
>
> Perhaps not for RTCWEB, but I'm fairly certain that we'd like to see 
> the same solutions applies to CLUE as RTCWEB. I concede that some of 
> these are applicable only to technologies that are dead or dying; 
> however...
>
>> I have at one point in my life dealt with T-series fax
>
> ...T.38 fax isn't one of them. Sadly.
What's your scenario where T.38 fax over RTP is relevant when file 
transfer over a reliable channel is available between the same 2 devices?
>
> It sure would be nice to discount all of the existing mechanisms, but 
> I suspect that they're not as wholly worthless are you're implying. 
> Perhaps when I have a bit more time, I'll sit down and do a 
> mechanism-by-mechanism evaluation of applicability of each to RTCWEB 
> and CLUE. Until then, I expect it's relatively safe to assume that 
> people haven't been putting values into that registry by performing 
> utterly meaningless work; and, further, that only a fraction of it has 
> been overtaken by technological progress.
90% is also a fraction. But I agree it's unlikely to be that high.

>
> /a