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

Bernard Aboba <> Tue, 07 May 2013 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C261121F90CD; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.538
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nJmS5SrUTu3j; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BAA21F905F; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W4 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 May 2013 16:07:06 -0700
X-EIP: [z8UyhQM504Tf75ckwG92qWmBYhYCPrBNPjyVqZXitwE=]
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <BLU169-W4FC780EB5DC8650032D6093BA0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d290e148-fa9f-4ebf-9aac-15bb029a37ec_"
From: Bernard Aboba <>
To: Roni Even <>, 'Harald Alvestrand' <>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:07:06 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <00d701ce4b74$cc846000$658d2000$>
References: <> <>, <>, <008701ce4b21$a0997aa0$e1cc6fe0$>, <> <BLU169-W108984F1E5A706E919E7BD693BA0@phx.gbl>, <00d701ce4b74$cc846000$658d2000$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2013 23:07:06.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[98037D40:01CE4B77]
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:07:13 -0000

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. 

The place for the RTP discussion is probably not in RTCWEB (more like AVTCORE).