[rtcweb] User Agent / Non-browser terminology
"Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" <uwe.rauschenbach@nsn.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 03:10 UTC
Return-Path: <uwe.rauschenbach@nsn.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 50A171AD0D6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:10:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QHzI_ueSzR8A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1F961ACD7E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id sAB39xrw017298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:09:59 GMT
Received: from DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.33]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id sAB39vqR024615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:09:58 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.5.75]) by DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:09:57 +0100
From: "Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" <uwe.rauschenbach@nsn.com>
To: ext Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: User Agent / Non-browser terminology
Thread-Index: Ac/9XPeMqPxFfEXKRRWfY0RofhmGtw==
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:09:56 +0000
Message-ID: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF819517AF2@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.110]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF819517AF2DEMUMBX005nsnin_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 1747
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1415675399-00001FC1-434CFB4C/0/0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7vRjfhEImD0Gailci4A5138tO0E
Subject: [rtcweb] User Agent / Non-browser terminology
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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:10:04 -0000
Hi Harald, The mic line is closed so I share this comment on the list. Doesn't it sound odd to have "WebRTC User Agent" vs. "WebRTC non-browser"? If we want to follow this path - shouldn't it then rather be "WebRTC browser" vs. "WebRTC non-browser"? Sounds more consistent to me. Kind regards, Uwe
- [rtcweb] User Agent / Non-browser terminology Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [rtcweb] User Agent / Non-browser terminology Harald Alvestrand