Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235091A06E8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fRTVCVz7hYV3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3071A06F5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f418e000001099-6a-532ab19f29da
Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C6.9D.04249.F91BA235; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:15:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.213]) by ESESSHC018.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.72]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:15:10 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
Thread-Index: Ac8+HSfEqf9sT+k2TCiwilJvB9C34g==
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:15:10 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CFA4E43@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF8B463@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAOW+2dsb1GqQmOxf7V6C1Xd_LG12d+kanSm80=kSwmQY=B7GSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-3S1axGPVWB8TF_ALwZ6ExF-D7m3MGsfrkx6EsQNWNpxQ@mail.gmail.com> <5328CF7D.1020703@jesup.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje78jVrBBqu/CFqc3ZZlsfZfO7sD k8eSJT+ZPD4sX8cWwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlXG17SBLwQ7OiidbGtkaGG+zdzFyckgImEi8 vfufCcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJLb8PsEA4Sxgl/h5vYAGpYhMIlNi6bwEbiC0CZB/93QU2 SVjAXuJX+x12iLiDxK6OJ1A1ehInb9xmBLFZBFQlWmd0gtXwCvhKrLn/lAliwS9GiWs/H4Et YAQ64/upNWAnMQuIS9x6Mh/qPAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhbAVJT6+2scIUa8ncWPqFDYIW1ti 2cLXzBDLBCVOznzCMoFRZBaSsbOQtMxC0jILScsCRpZVjBzFqcVJuelGBpsYgWF/cMtvix2M l//aHGKU5mBREuf9+NY5SEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVAPj7vWCM0qqii/cFN+w 7lpp7L3oE5EXtq/TdqmaEsavLRC9OfXIlU+xXA8Xmis9b9tzevWDV2vPlp/r21x8Y2vQ/5l9 976G593dbf9PkFWU9XHMCyNNxYfPJj99wztL2vySkv12jbKzBzvVYu82uMtP5Zjwerss44SA qwXbu888XBR4+IaPm6HlSyWW4oxEQy3mouJEAKNh64tJAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/6eI000zqonaUhranHYziUs7DrsQ
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we reference the pause/resume I-D?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:15:22 -0000

On 2014-03-18 23:59, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 3/12/2014 4:56 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>> Agreed. Aren't there also patent declarations against this doc from
>> multiple holders?
>>
>> While SDP will likely be removed from the API in the future, the
>> replacement would be a app-specific message sent over websockets,
>> which seems like it would work just fine.
>
> Except that WebSockets doesn't work peer2peer, which means both delay
> and issues with signaling configurations without a server sitting
> between the users.
>
> However, an app-specific message sent over a DataChannel should work
> just fine.
>
> The downside would be that everything becomes app-specific, which would
> be a problem for any sort of federation or peering setup, and likely
> gatewaying to legacy.

I'm of the opinion that we should push a lot of signaling like this 
(pause/resume) to RTP/RTCP for those reasons, and in addition to enable 
the UA to save power/transmission for the user.

But perhaps Bernard and Justin are right, this (v1) is not the right time.

>
>