Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Fri, 31 May 2013 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 812EA21F949D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qcoXShXxKV-p for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22a.google.com (mail-bk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE7A21F9433 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id jk14so681177bkc.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=lCTB4xp4cUxpZrP+OJVp6HqfM8y4qlhtVj20NC46j/Q=; b=mdTgq74XnX6gM2z7q2tHk9Sg6bdzwAvtjlViTWQJ4eFK1MUaiPafsCHaPwCpHGnX/H a+kvO7fe5b74fZ6mc30+ZbctXxdA9ChsKPTiZz8aVR7IHR1dNvQ9menFXcMOuNpz0DPo OzcRyaIHuypntKbdq9CFYfijahI5s9F/zl1PhiBXnm03oQAFO+EJc3XaqiQwqNsxZtKF BGQh0qgcjAgQmHKKU03Ya2tjITLlmlsIoeyRd4eZuriHeqa9Gp7pXTcshDUAf1BYsKzx Pb1riQWUMgwBHRG+/+u5rmfghlyNYUeGprmZEkOlVDn2ihKTHAv7fMXgR3awqLVMe/N5 Likg==
X-Received: by 10.204.26.8 with SMTP id b8mr3192909bkc.83.1369997465878; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local (77-85-161-202.btc-net.bg. [77.85.161.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id og1sm11203912bkb.16.2013.05.31.03.51.04 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 May 2013 03:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51A88098.1070407@jitsi.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:51:04 +0300
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
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: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <CAHBDyN5Bf+VS=wV+oMRmDF74p7QaTATfzGONDBjeEFNd4cJG9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN5Bf+VS=wV+oMRmDF74p7QaTATfzGONDBjeEFNd4cJG9A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnaJEAczc1jPKP+raLSQ6NPMbT5YXkJrZ+RFmtRWPTXbN/ddY+oSo1tJVGGs5uxGpA7WfkC
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:51:11 -0000

Hey Mary,

On 29.05.13, 22:23, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Personally, I really like this approach.  I think it will work well
> for CLUE. You might also want to add a reference to XCON in section 4.
>    The very reason we chartered XCON was because it seemed much more
> sensible to include more complex conferencing operations in a separate
> application layer protocol as opposed to overloading SIP/SDP O/A.

Agreed!

Thanks,
Emil

>
> Mary.
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Based on many of the discussions that we've had here, as well as many others
>> that we've had offlist, it seemed like a good idea to investigate a
>> negotiation alternative that relies on SDP and Offer/Answer just a little
>> bit less.
>>
>> The following "no plan" draft attempts to present one such approach:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-rtcweb-noplan
>>
>> The draft relies on conventional use of SDP O/A but leaves the intricacies
>> of multi-source scenarios to application-specific signalling, with
>> potentially a little help from RTP.
>>
>> Hopefully, proponents of Plans A and B would find that the interoperability
>> requirements that concerned them can still be met with "no plan". Of course
>> they would have to be addressed by application-specific signalling and/or
>> signalling gateways.
>>
>> Comments are welcome!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Emil
>>
>> --
>> https://jitsi.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> .
>

-- 
https://jitsi.org