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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 03 June 2013 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 0096F21F962D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 BFFPEkEQU3rv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DFD21F9485 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i13so1727548qae.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=vAuHROhi+P2p2vVHHKFa7qIt0ZWWnH80qHeP20bTvk0=; b=NoDtmeUkwC5+uXEEU6uf9MmG2MnjA78qAJQ4xPLyWsLWPEptm6Gt0q+tKsBxZLhhSF fuV6qVKcLu02/ZsPXmF2Nhro+cCK6ERDAU1Ge0reX2lQfQUT3DlbJIiHj/ksIJwVy9hs Mn8EMStUaoUPWItfvaMxNcyZSvyts33LqtGLjOogyzX6BAYLOinlpzJUeYsuRWh0E9dU YU8k4/JQ/BbDyBcFWN+IPdMTK6dAPQrkMt+kX/16jpVc3r/hwGMivMIT7yiYAxtBZ1ZF 7TEprM3/G8MvVnwvVNNv15fAJ4qYUzrC9rfH9dmzD1XUujvkFiLp3CP5M/N4P+ztzEKF KkUA==
X-Received: by 10.224.146.66 with SMTP id g2mr18630093qav.50.1370259517909; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.26.103 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 04:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51AC7D4F.6090708@omnitor.se>
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>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:38:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjGGbyvsoc6dTf6rb66O+EW02UEnDC1lr9GPwwO9gItRS/J6UUchFC7N0/pBbpRBOGV76d
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 11:38:39 -0000

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>