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

Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2013 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <btdingle@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 99CF421F9294 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 zPzYv9BCW998 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B4821F8F6E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hi5so2585632wib.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+QhIpBCGKYGWk5c2IRflCi5eInIHAHtf8XzAkhTBI/w=; b=iTDeZcsT6U76mt6w10tUYZcEdJpHdJxxOwEJSzA7wnKedngo2boTqkjxPHNozjIWcx JKhbTS+yl5QVdYQo12a3gVz54c6IXkIl3lOapI+jlKwaw0tHx8LplRi7bItlhc3vhpmo XvVGBEefE9hMSaEqjriMDiR5ZHmxKgIQK0v42k0c+9INrOSNMQtm28+2rammgbsy6xGR xkKRLY8diEoWraVu7sfSdHQWAsgMy/U0Yqi6Q1g9quSzhtMLR2Zo2qptzsib22TGGXEF G2NWbsZj9Athw+c2EUTJpXoh6jA/qU55vdTVH+Pt4REvcw9uoK/9hMLweLZq4sP9QH1R yROQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.6.9 with SMTP id w9mr18492427wjw.32.1370260323301; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.61.42 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F3EF.9080702@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkfz=qVM_wB21BBOypMTwTjkyG97zAmzHVpA6WHK2DA6w@mail.gmail.com> <51AC7D4F.6090708@omnitor.se> <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:51:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CAN=GVAtu+NuOS_Qwfq232Y7z3=XcZFW2MhjriM9mNT7nzno3mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b450966d1fff304de3e9714
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )
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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:52:07 -0000

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>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
>