Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements

Manuel Simoni <msimoni@gmail.com> Tue, 28 June 2011 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <msimoni@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 A4F1D21F86A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 6pu-lc0fqPbG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB9121F869B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so128416pvh.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=AT8bAUJC/AbP1T8659thLsfvBwTBaWpMhnNvw8mUY54=; b=oKLqd5dW0rYyrha3GkY1zvxo+CGZSx2Zd/jhDwgxcUivEwzxgNJiL0tCYagLtIUYnn UeawnpAzTRUnZZTsgAKaa/tsUuYo8Ae8kLhit+Hmgj3mhV2Lncwro3Lxi3otfaIBzCX3 J3ATqa3mN7Odf1Iqn+ZJyb9zPwvtzijjtgqCs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.132.21 with SMTP id f21mr1427281wfd.277.1309270725801; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.34.1 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E0832FE.7010401@ericsson.com>
References: <4E0832FE.7010401@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:18:45 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimxtCSbb0pkx1wSimOZkEtjVsg8fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Manuel Simoni <msimoni@gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements
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: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:18:46 -0000

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> At the interim it was planned to have a bit discussion on the datagram
> service for RTCWEB. The first question to try to resolve if there
> is consensus for including some form of non real-time media (i.e. not
> audio, video) service between peers. This is a bit tangled with the
> actual requirements and use cases. But there was views both for it and
> against it on the mailing list. So lets continue and try to come to a
> conclusion on this discussion.
>
> The use cases mentioned on the mailing list are:
>
> - Dynamic meta data for Conference and other real-time services
>
> - Gaming data with low latency requirements
>
> Does anyone like to add additional use cases?

Hello,

I don't understand the networking details, but I am sure that people
will want to transfer files between peers, and if only an unreliable
service is provided, people *will* implement it on top of the
unreliable service. Badly, probably.

Manuel Simoni