Re: [rtcweb] Resolving RTP/SDES question in Paris

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 06:20 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 33D2221E809C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.833
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Jax8amfoDoxa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAAF321E8053 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so1348733yhk.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:51 -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:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=T5kawUju0Kn+Y93Ub2gFuIJBdK7wa0XdS44TYqXlD60=; b=WkdJ9OflSNZHNXu5+RUg8VsdMr6RVM/934Zh0/xdTvjdY3PMHc39GZQ8CHRCUSncpN kBf2zaNMIgVReSx2C2QZZCsTvOID32DOItTdrBy3r6k+Do0Ay8tT4cyaJ2pSltVd+PuG PJeCnh0EhRZkBEmEpXw0MTXL7OBAvtg6kbZWnYY30hHFesPQgP82rK8DHn0A1JRQZpDo FlrkJZhI6IOqkVTjefKBmvosGkXvFBMLxffO47eH1CzF/BSeWxkHa6phCCq4bREfyiHl 7602th4YADaiBLlraXxOWfovn9cgl/8LBYEBxOWlICPimYNqbQ9uvAl9aOa+X8xOuy7Q nOOw==
Received: by 10.68.225.104 with SMTP id rj8mr3022761pbc.135.1333002051037; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b1sm4298385pbm.68.2012.03.28.23.20.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so2992189pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.201.98 with SMTP id jz2mr2864980pbc.97.1333002049700; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.6.67 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F6CC346.9000703@alvestrand.no>
References: <4F4759DC.7060303@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxsVp7px9bHAgxgdqPMxRgppcVUDKt8JHBhyq9qqW3pAMg@mail.gmail.com> <4F68A4CC.9090306@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxuiApLKRASc2YuBfkM_8h8wGDPPQ3TdOYGum2yauidA5A@mail.gmail.com> <4F6AECC6.8020004@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxsSUeMFYXZMZVqQFWdeEB=30HJuJ=mP9GaYkksBmp1mOA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW3AyREj9T2zDzJf64Bhjdfc1K8-ebZe-V0a-tbiTYEpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxswXun5nVhKcN2oXkTdr-wKuOB7PhbXgdGSE4RexhTd3A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUZgtgEWZvYiyxDVNsDRDNsdr30Pd38cZeR18UB1Z04mw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuLY2hZVqmna_GmpcBdFbZiP6ybKTJ19DN4f25mabLTrg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDFEmJVuZu_BCBvU34YbWB-0CCR7SbKt-3PF=XV0vs3JQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxu=JPJyWWPii=t8JGKAKTqVvB5JFQJ-jBBnXmiK4xpPEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMALJW2H5bM9yiykfBUqWoZifkZWpve=ih+ors1u9mz=7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxva=zm0NUwUE0mhaEOmrDYCvtn3kP701NeRbiBRKhPFJQ@mail.gmail.com> <13C620B3-1297-4212-B61C-5643E08E9748@acmepacket.com> <CAD5OKxt_i2eJ1hK6tR7aKUt4T+6sitfxdMaBfN-ASR6-UPRE2A@mail.gmail.com> <4F6CC346.9000703@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:20:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtNLawChET2AJmokJBkGQN-MCVfecqQrf+SgYPum+OuCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15aee9a8430604bc5bb9db
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQloaiMOgACsjH2fFJJlwPk0yCujtpR+j421UOUAu9FplYaDFvfOLWQZB6d78aDjN53mpkne
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Resolving RTP/SDES question in Paris
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, 29 Mar 2012 06:20:53 -0000

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> **
> It seems to me that you are arguing that the scenarios in section 4.1 of
> the use cases document do not cover that specific case, and I think you are
> right in that; the list is:
>
>    The following considerations are applicable to all use cases:
>    o  Clients can be on IPv4-only
>    o  Clients can be on IPv6-only
>    o  Clients can be on dual-stack
>    o  Clients can be on wideband (10s of Mbits/sec)
>    o  Clients can be on narrowband (10s to 100s of Kbits/sec)
>    o  Clients can be on variable-media-quality networks (wireless)
>    o  Clients can be on congested networks
>    o  Clients can be on firewalled networks with no UDP allowed
>    o  Clients can be on networks with cone NAT
>    o  Clients can be on networks with symmetric NAT
>
> Now, there are two ways to interpret this omission:
>
> - The WG did not think of that use case when the list was created
> - The WG does not want that use case on the list because it constrains the
> solution space too much
>
> If (re)opening this issue, I think I'd find myself in the "do not want
> that use case" camp.
>
>
I do not recall this use case ever being discussed on the working group, so
I would assume the current situation is due to WG not thinking about this
case when the list was created.
_____________
Roman Shpount