Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 15 September 2011 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 2368621F852E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 j0f5uWDhZDMD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA1F21F8514 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c47ae000000b17-c5-4e71eb07b506
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FC.DA.02839.70BE17E4; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:09:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:09:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4E71EB06.9010006@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:09:42 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
References: <4E70C387.1070707@ericsson.com> <F31F6627-B4FD-48DB-8C95-ECCBA63DFFB4@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <F31F6627-B4FD-48DB-8C95-ECCBA63DFFB4@acmepacket.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:07:33 -0000

On 2011-09-15 05:21, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> I am shocked, Shocked!, to see you suggest that we disregard RFC 4585
> and SDP rules, when we have an IETF specified means of indicating
> multiple profile support using RFC 5939 SDP Capability Negotiation. 
> ;)

Yes, sometimes I do surprise myself ;-). But, I am not really arguing
for disregarding RFC 4585. I definintely want all the functions of the
AVPF spec. But it is clear that the "RTP/AVPF" on m= lines is the issue
that people have.

But on a serious note. If all the energy spent discussing CAPNEG had
instead been put into implementing it. It would be universally deployed
by now.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------