Re: [rtcweb] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-24: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for your comments. Didn't follow what you were saying completely
though, are you asking for some additional discussion about upsides or
downsides of parallel forking (or both)?

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-24: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I found myself wishing that Section 3.8 was a bit clearer about the
> advantages
> of sequential versus parallel forking. I can imagine some of the advantages
> because I have a SIP background, and I can dig some of what I was
> expecting to
> see in 3.8.2, but I'm imagining and digging, and I'm betting that the
> document
> could be more explicit about the tradeoffs - just saying "if you're
> communicating with a SIP endpoint, most of them can only exchange media
> with
> one endpoint at a time" is already helping.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>