IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 20 May 2013 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 4541221F913E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 04:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 b47pFVNzyGya for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 04:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.130.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCDD21F910D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 04:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (port=61269 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1UeOAb-0001BW-Im; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:22:31 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <5199F032.9040101@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:22:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18F6AD0A-2D3F-44F5-900B-E7984D4AE85E@csperkins.org>
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com> <518A304A.1030609@alvestrand.no> <518F6338.8070903@jitsi.org> <518F83E5.4060209@alvestrand.no> <519519DB.6050702@nostrum.com> <519524EA.3000509@alvestrand.no> <51952860.5030906@nostrum.com> <5195304B.10706@alvestrand.no> <5199F032.9040101@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:22:42 -0000

On 20 May 2013, at 10:43, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 5/17/13 03:15, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Since an argument that has been made in favour of Plan A is that it is (supposedly) more compatible with deployed code, this interests me greatly. 
> 
> The other, probably more important factor when we're talking about legacy interop is that it will be hard (impossible?) to find *legacy* implementations that use more than 32 streams -- making this pretty much a non-issue from a legacy perspective.
> 
> However, I think we do need to be explicit that RTCWEB implementations need to actually implement the AVT profile as specified, including the ability to use 96 PTs.


Do you want to propose some text for the rtp-usage draft that clarifies this? If there's agreement, we can then include it. 

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email