Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=236d0731c=tterriberry@mozilla.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 7452521F8C6A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 PDbbTC6qQr1a for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxip0i.isis.unc.edu (mxip0i.isis.unc.edu [152.2.0.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F2F21F8C66 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EALtzd06sGgRa/2dsb2JhbABCplWBWoFTAQEFOEABEAsYCRYECwkDAgECAUUTAQcCvGmGeASHb5BlEoww
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,553,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="256250476"
Received: from mr2a.isis.unc.edu (HELO smtp.unc.edu) ([172.26.4.90]) by mxip0o.isis.unc.edu with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2011 12:56:04 -0400
X-UNC-Auth-As: tterribe
X-UNC-Auth-IP: 63.245.220.240
Received: from [10.250.5.61] (corp-240.mv.mozilla.com [63.245.220.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.unc.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8JGtng1009125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:56:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E777414.1040801@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:55:48 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110604 Gentoo/2.0.14 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E73C056.2090003@skype.net> <253421CC-AC2C-4896-8F63-68752F15C621@edvina.net> <40AA097E-47BD-44C7-B3E8-F7C056FCD43D@acmepacket.com> <4E776739.4010609@ericsson.com> <BACEBE38-1B93-4697-B548-9490339F7288@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <BACEBE38-1B93-4697-B548-9490339F7288@edvina.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:53:44 -0000

Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> Isn't MSRP developed for this kind of sessions between users? Is there something in the protocol design that stops it from being p2p?

Perhaps I'm confused, but doesn't MSRP rely on reliable, in-order delivery?