Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:53 UTC
Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56B121F859E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NlL0zgpFFHnp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE0A21F859C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so308955iwn.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3fQATj7tBxrmXrCbcA2harTgnBSLBeOrO+2gjHm8apc=; b=jjUBPyUic8co/ZtGM0PoYPW8AwqimajdprmAL7iTNXTu6UWEMm6X8l7bNp5hMLtmz/ gzDi4ib7XhLipmtpYIS4SscfdT/+Xc5CIfbBs2naNofkuDl29/zsYQuMuy8cSyfnwMHW vTtR7HEzWaDsQU8rk9aVDX+DoRPm4IP9V+wOI=
Received: by 10.231.180.156 with SMTP id bu28mr7738868ibb.134.1311173629773; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id az3sm418058icb.12.2011.07.20.07.53.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E26EC05.30703@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:53:57 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com> <4E25A31A.8010103@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E25A31A.8010103@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:53:54 -0000
I found the answer through the continued discussion in other messages sent to this WG list. There is no semantics between spectral modes and multiplex modes. In fact, news yesterday reveals "they're getting it" now, so I may not seem so much like a pest... "A team of researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory have found that it's hydrogen rather than carbon which plays a fundamental part in creating a uniform crystalline form." Read more: http://www.techeye.net/science/graphene-discovery-points-to-large-scale-production#ixzz1SelXjqyn Yes, we have been thinking in light ("spectral" crystal ICs) and hydrogen economy for years (stateful vs stateless protocols), and realized many do not, were stuck, or haven't yet realized this much at this level because their trained to think in unlimited resources. Practicality and duplication is near-term now. ...well, a resource-pest around standards to determine sustainable technology. Real-time and dates are always an issue with assets. If the above still doesn't make think, realize that generally hydrogen has no shape ("nobody"/nothing holds it), therefore considered unreliable for transport, until now... Thanks. On 07/19/2011 08:30 AM, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > On 07/19/2011 07:28 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> a) MUST be sent as Individual flows for each component. >> >> b) MUST be multiplexed into a single transport flow. >> >> c) SHOULD be multiplexed into a single transport flow, but the RTCWEB >> peer MUST be able to send them as individual flows. >> > > One clarification please, if there are known ranges of A as one > spectrum, does this WG still consider that multiplexed? IPv6, for > example, allows us to multiplex in a TCP-less way, simply by > fulfillment of the flows to more than one individual address. Those > addresses could constitute one spectrum in a stateful manner, or not. > -- --- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol --- Web Development, Software Engineering Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant
- [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not! Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] Support for websockets Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Support for websockets Salvatore Loreto