IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 05 July 2012 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 9F2BD21F87B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:49:48 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 eNHomLQwGrWh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39B721F87AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty7 with SMTP id y7so581734bkt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Lrrsz00ZmI0pGS9Yp4HniUEWSQRZRrGtDBKmm3MZpOs=; b=tXyhB4pggXbevbimnWlIS8HmoM3e/6oG71unbVokCfnLzpuXvZfxRxlRbD95HAn335 JdPQhfSlBsR+PstUgiW23a/hHvgbzS2Ky0DrSfTYVeGQWaiFh5L1tjv9tgBrxtFFGLON j3RT5I+RGyJvqdklz7j3zA3c4d8H4SldRLFJVyVgASI8OEjwp3HQWOcFshaA7OQFdzUr CsLehth58xkHiT1gSze/cHxFht+8Qh/CX0nVAD6biMKDC9W7HYC1Zk/CNIYVbTv4tAI3 ZuYytYWILwHs2102tqHyvfYMW+YQRuAASgYqsX1dYoV9ljgt6pcIydSS683qPCCAV8Ab 7Y4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.132.6 with SMTP id hs6mr13812301bkc.26.1341503400945; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.66.4 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxvqRUuhdfS368_VNS5w6NxChZW=fhYNOHjkJJozXsJ4TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxui0XeYA8GOnNCkPin_XjOoNvEHeQq1OcmEJ1aYpbF3_A@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfkJPSj3obFTz0zeF_WZZob1a2eOnMF0ys6QkUxzs6AAEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvqRUuhdfS368_VNS5w6NxChZW=fhYNOHjkJJozXsJ4TA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:50:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUEi9zTCf=LWoKPOTeo47x4Pj=P3_tdM2MhSQtZn1RB6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:49:48 -0000

On 5 July 2012 04:30, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> 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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email