IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Thu, 21 July 2011 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@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 4EBBC21F8556 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.613, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BAJ+bJ7ZHeUZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A25F21F8550 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so838852gwb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hMPHGTOHdU9eEBcUx7DTATb0hfH8exY6BR5XKgu/O/4=; b=qzZu8ez+oVk5+6N+iWgnhIXf9c5nQEIIzU3fvHIrVPYYk98XM+jjLpS/ttfZ+YbcsO WmJLKIWhahQldViLbv0KYcAt8XEKACoj6oyAtpUt0dc0vv1Edv7sgt5le12Gqa9VdQVj qt0WEIEXaDSl0Qxz7xFJ2lohAmKYQ6ArfqtAE=
Received: by 10.151.21.17 with SMTP id y17mr56946ybi.13.1311214882616; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h6sm1126676icy.1.2011.07.20.19.21.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E278D2A.4060505@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:21:30 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E259EAD.3060505@ericsson.com> <FAE78F7C-8C51-41C4-B3D7-6497396E12A5@cisco.com> <4E26C5CF.1080007@ericsson.com> <BLU152-W54BE1A03753680FF0094C4934C0@phx.gbl> <CAOJ7v-2kwiCipJSHmNT9GuGJJzEjPV-X00TLnf-LwbsJ1ADwDw@mail.gmail.com> <896BDC4C-849C-4553-89C8-7EFEF9FFEC6B@skype.net> <38DF8F00ABAB77498A75469448CB081B3AE69BEBC4@BE235.mail.lan> <CAB+e8F6dbTEDDorimVgKuFq5EAXGyy6FFKXC7JQ3=qieqnOnpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CD928305-E886-431E-8CC8-5A0F85B44D23@csperkins.org> <4E275900.1@skype.net> <B369B7F3-2691-4E4B-8022-5465AD70086A@csperkins.org> <9FF53197-3F9F-4324-BDDE-8A5B1F002C25@skype.net>
In-Reply-To: <9FF53197-3F9F-4324-BDDE-8A5B1F002C25@skype.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:21:27 -0000

On 07/20/2011 03:50 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>
>    
>>
>> You're free to re-invent that wheel, if you wish. However, if you want to use RTP for RTCWeb, then you need to accept that doing so has both some advantages and some disadvantages.
>>      
> I believe we've managed to demonstrate that the disadvantages are sufficient to argue against using RTP for RTCWeb. Too bad, because it seems otherwise like such a good choice.
>
>    

If we digress to rhinophytophilia use-cases, which the step-by-step 
process exploits good flows in breath analyzers, in RTP sense, then I 
think this would be the focus to weigh advantages and disadvantages. Not 
everybody breaths syllables into the net online, imagine some terrified 
already of such analytics. Maybe someday we can predict this kind of 
discussion and prepare for the colossal mix of schemes, yet for now 
there is the coined bit of "no a/s/l". Sane? Certain safety.

-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email