Re: [rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 5 July 2012 04:30, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > This was all written out of frustration mainly by the direction taken by
> > this group on adding things that are not strictly necessary but break
> > interoperability. It is completely incomprehensible to me  why the group
> > decided to add PRANSWER if connection cloning is just as easy to
> implement
> > and would make, on one hand, interop easier, on another hand add
> significant
> > new functionality. When I am saying that connection cloning is easy to
> > implement I mean that I am willing to build a prototype based on chromium
> > code that implements it. Getting the new API through IETF/W3C is above my
> > skill level, since I am fairly bad at writing drafts.
>
> PRANSWER is purely an API construct.  How does that affect
> interoperability other than making it harder to write the browser code
> that achieves it?
>

PRANSWER is an API construct, but it assumes that only serial proxies are
supported. This is an interop issue.
_____________
Roman Shpount