Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 04 November 2011 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 84AB421F85B8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 DLhvFuA5lCwz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D155021F8C53 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so2628594vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.113.227 with SMTP id jb3mr15534848vdb.15.1320424279319; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAErhfrwNwd3NZmWb7L3+F72dBKi=mrhYJoMXkVREbXRXS8E-HA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6@USSCMB03.plt.plantronics.com> <CAErhfrwEZ86DCQOREhUQ2eMP99LKf2ausAvWbKYX5oj=_6YDyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrwNwd3NZmWb7L3+F72dBKi=mrhYJoMXkVREbXRXS8E-HA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:31:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfkVir+qYbviNZdNMJ3ECCaGACPBLdN+dxH3f6Pk7W3s+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec548a6831f25fd04b0eb3c32
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "Bran, Cary" <Cary.Bran@plantronics.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:31:21 -0000

El 04/11/2011 15:20, "Xavier Marjou" <xavier.marjou@orange.com> escribió:
>
>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00,
which
I fully support by the way.

Xavier, such draft does not propose that Webrtc must implement all the
requirements in the draft. It just lists all the requirements needed in
order to fully interoperate with current SIP deployments and opens the door
for discussion about it.

So if you "fully support" this draft it means that you are just interested
in making Webrtc to work with current SIP, regardless security requirements
in the Web.

So let me know: do you support that browsers must implement g729? Do you
support that webrtc requires not security at all in the media plane (like
legacy SIP)?

If so, I dont think you care about Webrtc for the Web, but just for telcos.
Behaviors like this one makes this WG to seem a telco party rather than a
WG working for the Web. WebRTC means RTC for the Web, rather than Web for
telcos, or that is what I hope.

Regards.