IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.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 A956C21F8DAC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5Xhki2Jg7V0r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFFD21F8DAA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=1369; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1316028103; x=1317237703; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=qSnHSylYpRNYLhIPk87qj3aYjyaMfvoSRi6KRb0JUZ4=; b=D9zxCZDxppYM2/ZnQIe7v/qMkBTA9Or2Fldc3/D8TMAmqrUSbKt1GzMJ 92TRS2Bvb3NdVRT2+Mjhst5ItdHzFyTdMjBrCixWObuatdZPKcTL5NK3P VqYOMjfTh1MWwU10lw50tGfLTw5LontDCmxbk7nxC00CVY3SQE/xleoLk U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArEAAAL+cE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABBmE2Oe3iBUwEBBQEBAQ8BHQo0FwQCAQgRBAEBAQoGFwEGASYfCQgBAQQBEggah1mWcgGeT4YOYASHbpB1jCE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,382,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="2148698"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2011 19:21:43 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8EJLhA5017017; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:21:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:21:42 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:21:42 -0700
Message-ID: <E1CBF4C7095A3D4CAAAEAD09FBB8E08C054CBA39@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E70DFF3.1030104@jesup.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP
Thread-Index: AcxzATPDyqbuOjDHSLaHbM4uqqn7KAAEgysg
References: <4E70C387.1070707@ericsson.com> <4E70DFF3.1030104@jesup.org>
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2011 19:21:42.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[8909DE80:01CC7313]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP
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: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:19:33 -0000

Option 2 is what is documented as the best practice for interoperability
purposes within the IMTC as well.

Cheers,
Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Randell Jesup
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:10 AM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP
> 
> On 9/14/2011 8:08 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> > This leaves us with any signaling incompatibilities when talking to
a
> > legacy device. If one don't want to use cap-neg I see two directions
to go:
> >
> > 1) RTCWEB end-point will always signal AVPF or SAVPF. I signalling
> > gateway to legacy will change that by removing the F to AVP or SAVP.
> >
> > 2) RTCWEB end-point will always use AVPF but signal it as AVP. It
will
> > detect the AVPF capabilities of the other end-point based on the
> > signaling of the feedback events intended to be used.
> >
> > I think 1) is cleaner for the future. 2) might be more pragmatic.
> 
> I think this is something we should consider; I'll note that WorldGate
> has been using option 2 for the last 7 or so years with no problems.
> 
> --
> Randell Jesup
> randell-ietf@jesup.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email