IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability - what have we learned?

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sun, 22 December 2013 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 331171AE3DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:12:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 seOJ6LJmsElP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s21.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s21.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7861ADF9B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W89 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s21.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:12:44 -0800
X-TMN: [RQYAqAowraLrlL0z/Z78TySb4KRjydbz]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W89BB21BD97352E6D90939793C60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_e06898bf-2d86-4c24-833d-16e33d4de509_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:12:44 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20131222000435.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org>, <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com>, <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi>, <20131220113631.GA70585@verdi> <52B47196.6060400@bbs.darktech.org>, <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com>, <BLU403-EAS179850B162A879E8A7BC47793C70@phx.gbl>, <20131221231651.GX3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>, <BLU405-EAS3161C2664A35035737B2A0093C70@phx.gbl>, <20131222000435.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2013 17:12:44.0845 (UTC) FILETIME=[07BE3DD0:01CEFF39]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability - what have we learned?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:12:49 -0000

> I haven't seen other questions of interoperability going unanswered
> just because this one is still not resolved yet. 
[BA] This debate has consumed so many cycles that there has been little room to discuss anything else. 
> And however many drafts may still be waiting on something for completion, I haven't> seen huge floods of people reporting having those problems either.
[BA] There have been a substantial number of issues filed in TRAC - including against the RTP usage document (which does not adequately cover aspects such as feedback messages and bandwidth estimation), circuit breakers (which appears to compete with the consent mechanism) and the security document (which still has open issues on screen sharing). 
Personally, I'd prefer to spend my time on those issues.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email