Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 12 July 2013 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 751B221F9D2A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 leNhvnFaNvxe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f54.google.com (mail-qe0-f54.google.com [209.85.128.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E55D21F9D01 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ne12so4950962qeb.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=iwMuB4/Hp5DoCU+XWnf8M0cS5yZKX9Jd+PQcVETH1S8=; b=RfaKDjvBCMwkj5cgxI4DyHvfR4Rw1qSwHo1x19CRBf1IwvwWnTmArtY5PpGXAF+a5V wRGjQ+cFr5+lx/c0JbmBDpiRKdFLJXHgACfeqC51nyM/U+GO/eeh3VQD8kDWN8COPYRn Vj819HmDrC13F4GGBFdIf+RLSYs0lbb72pto6ZwLdgmnWl5q347Tx4f6D1vri+0l7dqE sDSg7xr6Nq1/5TFON0fqtEw6BWhKg0Lwk7VTLUdZhbbLYcOiHGscCuncZpIwBFqM5GS5 nHwBTuOELotaBMYAjH60CaB9SaVdbmeLk8TK8bKvFbdmkebnMtUb9AjQjmcLDCbhKEcW 2IlA==
X-Received: by 10.49.98.138 with SMTP id ei10mr34390499qeb.3.1373625696799; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C311A4C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+dyYmvsareEy1a9+7ketEFjNarsnRLXkpT_YHPTYni2w@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1135D31FD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CABkgnnU9r9OT+XW=Ewf=25yBJGCEZxCVnu_r1D=Eu=f9wrV4Kg@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C311367@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfm6=dYKubKLkV+pQNY=SOc8WNdoCvA7Es=+N-ouJDbj1g@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C311A4C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:41:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnrU6btx4UOT_AJxXC7t5M5fOOhM+YAHExHVMSq8fooXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_H=C3=A5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkXi0L7uR6Sfrkd0A/RhMxGTOSL0kWVauacHgqz1Ju2W6DnTOAHkTkIjA03bTNdIH0LbJJf
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:41:42 -0000

2013/7/12 Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>om>:
>> I've never seen an API in which the application requests some data to
>> the core, and then mangles such a data before sending it to the peer.
>> This is like if I ask the browser to send video, the browser gives me
>> a media description (I will not assume SDP) with ptime=20, and I
>> mangle the media description to set ptime=50, while at the same time I
>> have no idea whether my browser can send RTP with ptime=50 or not.
>
> I think this is not at all the way it should be done; if people think
> there is a need to define a specific ptime there should be an API that
> allows for that (and that has means of letting the app know what the
> allowed ranges are, or at least what is actually used).

That looks a real JS Object based API, right? ;)


> Let's go and do
> that in the WebRTC WG.

Sure.


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>