Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 16 December 2014 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9B01A877D for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:18:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h9MF1h03y4pN for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA1FF1A8757 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:17:58 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f791c6d00000617b-2d-54909374ad92
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8B.4B.24955.47390945; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:17:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:17:56 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Adam Roach <>, David Singer <>, Harald Alvestrand <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:17:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D5E8C5AESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7J5AkhBr+nSFvs+buI3eJYXxeb xdp/7ewW8/s/sjiweFyZcIXVY+vJH2weS5b8ZPKYtfMJSwBLFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG+p8N jAUvIit+LDvJ3MC4JryLkYNDQsBE4lCbZxcjJ5ApJnHh3nq2LkYuDiGBI4wSz/c3MkI4Sxgl buz7zgbSwCZgIdH9TxukQUSgQKLlxFkmEJtZQF3izuJz7CC2sICKxMNr75khalQl7ny4xQ5h h0ks/DENzGYBit++2A7WyyvgK7F/dR8zxK6VLBJXz61nAUlwCmhL7J7UDWYzAl33/dQaqGXi EreezGeCuFpAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/WCFsJYlFtz9D1edLXOt7wAixTFDi5MwnLBMYRWchGTUL SdksJGWzgF5mFtCUWL9LH6JEUWJK90N2CFtDonXOXHZk8QWM7KsYRYtTi5Ny042M9VKLMpOL i/Pz9PJSSzYxAqPy4JbfqjsYL79xPMQowMGoxMNrsKA/RIg1say4MvcQozQHi5I478Jz84KF BNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MMYXbVoR8edM15taa6koz7CHEXc3Whw48SlB6e/E nPfbjzpv7Bdpee87qaCPO2DHuqn8rSHce1PTd56yT2dx/xWcdjmoujozSCubeVXroTnsJxeK f2CvuMfCeWd94cnIw26P9WfsNGqXPLBs32TWW87u8neUE7YGPP16asXv92EBqj0zBRbllCix FGckGmoxFxUnAgDXtmjbqwIAAA==
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:18:04 -0000


The decision to use that terminology (browser, non-browser and compliant) was made during the first RTCWEB session at the same IETF meeting, when Harald presented the status of the overview draft.

I assume Harald will implement that decision into the next version of the overview draft.



From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: 16 December 2014 22:10
To: David Singer; Harald Alvestrand
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

On 12/16/14 13:33, David Singer wrote:

Except I can’t find the text “non-browser” in the referenced document.

Huh. I see the following (cf. <><>):

   o  A WebRTC non-browser is something that conforms to the protocol

      specification, but does not claim to implement the Javascript API.

      This can also be called a "WebRTC device" or "WebRTC native


In terms of the text you cited about the relationship between terms, which is an outdated version of:

   All WebRTC browsers are WebRTC endpoints, so any requirement on a

   WebRTC endpoint also applies to a WebRTC browser.

If you think you see somewhere that we're imposing a requirement on an endpoint that doesn't *also* apply to a browser, please call it out explicitly.

If this is some oblique attempt to complain about the reference to the -12 version of the overview document [1]  by pretending to be daft [2]: you're not fooling anyone, so you can stop it. You may be misguided, but we all know that you're not stupid.


[1] Rather than the -13 version that came out three days after *this* document
[2] As you did with the "Brower" typo