Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 10 January 2014 19:20 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82471AE1B5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HoHr6FfH7Xe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69C61AE1BC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0AJK6SI016978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:20:09 -0800
Message-ID: <52D04781.2030504@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:18:25 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CAHp8n2kq+_uG=9XwoAGtRgqYU2Asc2Fv6RZ0aCW6cJi-LnhD+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2kq+_uG=9XwoAGtRgqYU2Asc2Fv6RZ0aCW6cJi-LnhD+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:20:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 10 Jan 2014 19:20:21 -0000
> if you want to restrict > WebRTC to interoperability with old systems only and therefore to old > features only? My impression is that the above point could indicate a very basic point of confusion amongst a number of participants. The issue is the difference between minimal, guaranteed interoperability, versus maximum possible capabilities. The statement seems to be concerned about permitting maximum capabilities, whereas Mandatory to Implement is usually for ensuring the first goal of basic interoperability. That is, it seeks to ensure that any two participants can achieve basic, useful interoperation. When there is a negotiation mechanism, that is the way to then get mutual agreement to do something more capable. Whether to interoperate with legacy systems is a common, strategic decisions. It is hugely important and often affects success of an effort. On the average, Internet protocols have tended to try quite hard to permit interoperation with legacy systems, where possible. This has often been a challenge, and often has slowed down adoption of newer features. These hassles are balanced against getting a larger base of initial users more easily. The problem with ignoring the installed base of legacy users is the danger that they will continue using their legacy services and not switch to the wonderful new service. Creators of wonderful new services often underestimate the switching barrier that impedes those legacy users. By contrast, defining things in a way that is friendly to legacy users, while permitting a negotiation path to higher capabilities, is often successful at seducing those users, over time, to try out the more capable features. Unless I've entirely misunderstood the design of webRTC, the intent is (or can be and should be) to support basic, legacy interoperation, while permitting negotiation up to newer and more wonderful capabilities. For that model, what's most important about the core MTI requirements is that they permit maximum degree of interoperability; where possible that should include legacy systems. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Silvia Pfeiffer
- [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies stephane.proust
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Hervé W.
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (Was:… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [rtcweb] Interoperability and freedom to implement Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Steve McFarlin
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Steve McFarlin
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… cowwoc
- [rtcweb] Transcoding Delay John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Transcoding Delay Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Transcoding Delay Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] There are no legacy WebRTC devices (… Randell Jesup