Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft

Lorenzo Miniero <> Tue, 07 August 2012 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA46D21F86DE for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kx85iM+KwKig for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id E438A21F873C for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2989 invoked by uid 89); 7 Aug 2012 19:00:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 7 Aug 2012 19:00:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 26579 invoked by uid 89); 7 Aug 2012 19:00:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rainpc) ( by with SMTP; 7 Aug 2012 19:00:53 -0000
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:54:47 +0200
From: Lorenzo Miniero <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Message-ID: <20120807205447.2212f617@rainpc>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20120807180156.286e74d2@rainpc> <>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: 1.6.2 0/1000/N
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:01:11 -0000

Hello Ted,

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0700
Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Lorenzo Miniero <> wrote:
> > That said, I guess there's a different question I should be asking to
> > the chairs: since there seems to be no related item in the milestones,
> > is such a work actually in line with what is the expected outcome of the
> > WG? Considering the draft basically addresses a new transport for RTP
> > and something that probably needs to be negotiated as well, I guess this
> > could be seen as belonging elsewhere (AVTCORE and/or MMUSIC?).
> > Nevertheless, my feeling is it belongs more here than somewhere else,
> > especially considering we're specifying a solution that will be deployed
> > in browsers and, as such, people will expect it to work wherever other
> > web applications do.
> My take on this is that the actual work on developing the alternate
> transport for RTP would have to occur elsewhere and, frankly, I think
> it is a large enough task that it would likely require its own working
> group (much as the RTP congestion control topic ended up as a BoF and
> hopefully will become its own working group).  That doesn't mean that
> the work couldn't be informed by the RTCWEB use cases, but I think it
> would have to be done elsewhere.
> I'd personally suggest starting with a discussion with the ADs on
> whether a BoF on this topic would be something they might consider.
> (Note, however, that I have not talked to Cullen about this and Magnus
> is on vacation, so this is not a "Chairs' response"; just my own
> thoughts).

This makes sense. I'm a bit concerned about the additional time that may be needed by going through the process of forming a new WG (compared to just adding a milestone to an existing WG, that is), as the final result may end up being available much after the original WG completed its works, but I see your point.

I'll wait for more feedback about this and, if enough people seem interested about doing something like this, contacting the ADs and consider the next steps may be a good idea.


> regards,
> Ted Hardie

Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools