Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Wed, 29 May 2013 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@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 1538621F85C9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 edMpqc2dasoE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8659921F961C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id w62so6847220wes.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iaMg/6wmYD1WlhN8kFrrAjsgF/NFn6Hi+To3VkkueqQ=; b=l33SOsU18WyHo22tdUHJdfFwfCbDr84rjP9gxenU5mtb5usD1xrH+9pseayl1Fqj1n d3GD3GgJBKnFHJZTJdGS3lhHDJi1tirS/DRAuiJyXy7l2r4j/GlvwV8jPO3zq2Ys4H8q 5WeRx+13Geev63vtm9yacxd38VOS3W2KdiVFSomeYW6BQdcKRsEYxGY+yp5XA4+ttLwl WaLZ3RqfNN9VGuuvcc7/LxpmcBf4gd6IGqK7UP75H0Bz3IpS0zV3Kc6TIGZPHkyMY5+8 TAGnblAOyxR9MeJEDrI7hjNGZXqep4hAVvDQpp4XQavmb8EuzO620+O5G3sW8+s9pdMC 2lrA==
X-Received: by 10.180.160.206 with SMTP id xm14mr16143402wib.50.1369860923997; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([90.165.209.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ca19sm33744447wib.3.2013.05.29.13.55.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51A66B3B.6070005@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 22:55:23 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <BLU404-EAS183E8C6EC78BF3F108964C793900@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU404-EAS183E8C6EC78BF3F108964C793900@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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, 29 May 2013 20:56:20 -0000

Hi,

I also think it is the best approach.

Best regards
Sergio

El 29/05/2013 22:30, Bernard Aboba escribió:
> I also like it quite a bit. In particular I think it is more compatible with simulcast and layered coding than Plan A or Plan B.
>
> Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Personally, I really like this approach.  I think it will work well
> for CLUE. You might also want to add a reference to XCON in section 4.
>    The very reason we chartered XCON was because it seemed much more
> sensible to include more complex conferencing operations in a separate
> application layer protocol as opposed to overloading SIP/SDP O/A.
>
> Mary.
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many others
>> that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate a
>> negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a little
>> bit less.
>>
>> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
>>
>> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the intricacies
>> of multi-source scenarios to application-specific signalling, with
>> potentially a little help from RTP.
>>
>> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the interoperability
>> requirements that concerned them can still be met with "no plan". Of course
>> they would have to be addressed by application-specific signalling and/or
>> signalling gateways.
>>
>> Comments are welcome!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Emil
>>
>> --
>> https://jitsi.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb