Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

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