[rtcweb] Where Plan A, B, and "no plan" discussions should happen

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 13D7521F9965 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 vR1RsY4bYIKu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF6B21F994A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k5so4665090iea.32 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hkvLeKZNBpLsJp6sF42+t8Jn5KWbizzcX8AMRyO1iJ8=; b=LtCUkZ0rQPfyZokomf/uVVCTBF00o48YK/8iHp1ZS8exBPSKCA//HSH2ISVr4PfBGA 5NyJVPO09Y6wRiWoiU8lKOQbprYJ5f1MC0QPDRioGh1aD6+umX1Fr41Q4WvTlZ0YZzOI OnyoIvZDYyBvLNqvp50hbjmxB8fAUsmMHYiKT/wd6Fo6EJnrsw9GO2Uchd6iXHGRyUCK dQSgnVuB3AdNBApY/1CsGjRvGTkU7y7+X+xK3teIhlGqZFiZkvOlN9x9jHJxo1HtNGWx 4Z+ZDPil2XDAUeAtQE+daWif0CuA3OQCjxEpbtMoGDnCU+dtWIrIh0EPOGC8fjmxYnQI 3Y4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.131.73 with SMTP id y9mr19816374ics.22.1370627380839; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.177.2 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:49:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMA-sye-uss+xa1kHkcGu7Yaw9QdgioHq2kj2a76RfQgCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e901c278d5504de940e13
Subject: [rtcweb] Where Plan A, B, and "no plan" discussions should happen
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: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:49:42 -0000

Howdy,

Several folks have asked for clarification on where plan A, plan B, and "no
plan" discussions should occur. Magnus and Cullen and I have not had much
chance to discuss it, but here is my take:

RTCWEB has made a request of MMUSIC for a standardized way to handle
multiple media flows (for large values of "multiple" in some cases).  Plan
A and Plan B propose specific approaches and syntax to resolve the
request.  Discussions of those approaches and syntax belong in MMUSIC, full
stop.

Discussions of whether we actually need a standardized way to handle that
belong in RTCWEB, because they are essentially an argument to the WG that
we can withdraw the request to MMUSIC and go forward using other pieces of
the WebRTC mechanics to resolve the problem.

Emil's draft has some elements which critique plan A and plan B, and a
proposal that falls into the "no need for a standard here" camp.  For
clarity's sake, it might be easiest if those were split.  The proposal that
a standard isn't needed could be submitted as an RTCWEB relevant draft
(draft-ivov-rtcweb-no-plan-needed, perhaps?).  The critique of Plan A and
Plan B could be submitted as an MMUSIC draft
(draft-ivov-mmusic-plan-a-b-considerations, perhaps?).

At this point, I do not see consensus to withdraw the request to MMUSIC
from RTCWEB, but, as I said, Magnus, Cullen, and I have not had much chance
to coordinate, so this is not a chair decision.

regards,

Ted Hardie