Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )

Real-time voice and real-time video need to agree on encode/decode rules
and transport.

Real-time text requires the same.

Using your rationale Inaki, then we don't need to standardise RT voice and
RT video - so WebRTC/rtcWeb is a waste of time!!

Or do you see RT Text as something different to RT Voice and RT Video?

Cheers,
/Barry Dingle

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2013/6/3 Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>:
> > As I see it, RTCWEB has a goal to enable audio, video and data
> communication
> > between a user in Website-A and a user in Website-B.
>
> I strongly disagree. A WG won't change what the WWW wants, ant the WWW
> has shown us, during years, a way of communication without real
> interaction between different websites. Specifically users logged into
> site-A don't directly interact with users logged into site-B, instead
> site-A embed a JS code of site-B into the web, so users of site-B can
> use site-B features (*same* JS app client in both users).
>
>
> > My conclusion is again: whatever transport we select for Real-Time Text
> in
> > the WebRTC environment, there is a need to standardize it.
>
> My opinion is that we don't need a Real-Time Text specification in
> WebRTC at all. We have DataChannel which means "realtime data", and
> such a data can be text, images, binary content or whatever the
> website wants to offer.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>