Re: [rtcweb] #22: Section 4.3: Negotiation requirement

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 26 August 2013 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 8741321E808D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 KmLpMJZT-+Kv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.131.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5C221E8096 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (port=54732 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1VDyXN-0007Qj-Lv; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:04 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <081.3a6c5de6d51511f8c2f06adbf2b289f6@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:02 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F84DBD58-4B24-46D6-AD4C-AE23343343BC@csperkins.org>
References: <066.06808f782ff829d089ef906c558013c8@trac.tools.ietf.org> <081.3a6c5de6d51511f8c2f06adbf2b289f6@trac.tools.ietf.org>
To: rtcweb issue tracker <trac+rtcweb@grenache.tools.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage@tools.ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #22: Section 4.3: Negotiation requirement
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:17:29 -0000

On 26 Aug 2013, at 08:03, rtcweb issue tracker <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #22: Section 4.3: Negotiation requirement
> 
> 
> Comment (by bernard_aboba@hotmail.com):
> 
> [Magnus Westerlund]
> 
> We are using in negotiated in this specification as meaning:
> - All nodes in a specific RTP session must agree on a common
> configuration.
> 
> To achieve this at least some type of capability and configuration
> exchange needs to happen. Even if it is stripped down to say: Use
> algorithm X and here are the peer capabilities that needs to be taken
> into account.
> 
> [BA] I agree that the nodes must agree. So maybe just say that: "MUST be agreed upon between the parties before they are used."


Fine. Once again, I'll give SDP as an example of how this can be done.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/