IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 4572B21F90EB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 AsH4jurOAeEh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B9F21F90EA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (118-163-10-190.HINET-IP.hinet.net [118.163.10.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r4K9hJsY064039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 May 2013 04:43:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5199F032.9040101@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:43:14 +0800
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com> <518A304A.1030609@alvestrand.no> <518F6338.8070903@jitsi.org> <518F83E5.4060209@alvestrand.no> <519519DB.6050702@nostrum.com> <519524EA.3000509@alvestrand.no> <51952860.5030906@nostrum.com> <5195304B.10706@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <5195304B.10706@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 118.163.10.190 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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, 20 May 2013 09:43:42 -0000

On 5/17/13 03:15, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Since an argument that has been made in favour of Plan A is that it is 
> (supposedly) more compatible with deployed code, this interests me 
> greatly. 

The other, probably more important factor when we're talking about 
legacy interop is that it will be hard (impossible?) to find *legacy* 
implementations that use more than 32 streams -- making this pretty much 
a non-issue from a legacy perspective.

However, I think we do need to be explicit that RTCWEB implementations 
need to actually implement the AVT profile as specified, including the 
ability to use 96 PTs.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email