Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 1DF3611E810E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 4sWKHrJY9Vtt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC3F11E8100 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r4GHddN7072509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 May 2013 12:39:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <519519DB.6050702@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:39:39 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com> <518A304A.1030609@alvestrand.no> <518F6338.8070903@jitsi.org> <518F83E5.4060209@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <518F83E5.4060209@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080700050004040507070008"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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, 16 May 2013 17:39:58 -0000

On 5/12/13 06:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> So you're saying that when using 1-31 streams, we use a single port 
> pair, but when we use 32 streams, we use 32 port pairs? 

Harald:

Your insistence of using "32" rather than "96" is somewhat reminiscent 
of the statements made Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (the Iraqi Information 
Minister at the end of Saddam Hussein's tenure). During the 2003 
invasion of Iraq, he made several proclamations that were so factually 
incorrect, so out of touch with reality, and so easy to disprove, that 
they became an hilarious Internet meme. His antics earned him the 
nickname "Comical Ali" in the popular press.

I've tried correcting you on this point, even going so far as to cite 
document, section, and paragraph; it doesn't seem to have made any 
difference.

I would strongly encourage you to stick to documented reality in this 
discussion rather than stating facts from an alternate universe that 
would, if true, bolster your position. Otherwise, you risk becoming the 
same kind of laughingstock that Comical Ali did.

/a