Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 08 October 2012 22:58 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 C3CA721F84B5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uVmYbiER0IJm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1963C21F84A7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h15so1814713dan.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:58:57 -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=k1XV8XgbnnZMIQHjCI9IrM2nadpnuRMfhYvBw1Upejo=; b=Fh72SfnWknuyn7S0eUeHmC+nIWoeTK96J8OK5Quu7j3JOwG1jEQA+fdbiTO0Rs4qqu 3/G4z93XZPJT9bjOppwGiXXM4puaCii5GZRyWxol7yq+CmtzdW24FkjVpDucCSkc5Ssk OrZkl5SxYXlhnyKPSctbLCofs2OtH6mefmsowdLe+3KQJv/BxZRAetoO2z5PRebbhuEt KTm9bFP/kAS/Ux5HRmhn6J9Gy5PFVZvmsSyN70uGv9LT0AxgUmlHc+ff24QJf8diL7ug 6k0xtw2h8e9w0+QyAO2guRZVEVEK6IrTO2hZ4flSDClsDrPxewUuulo+TvcvwyEnfYfD xfbw==
Received: by 10.66.84.229 with SMTP id c5mr46902166paz.76.1349737137871; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:58:57 -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 rr6sm11336508pbc.47.2012.10.08.15.58.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ro8so4532066pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.225.7 with SMTP id rg7mr58630116pbc.32.1349737135328; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.42.8 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11187F8FB@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <506B0367.4000103@ericsson.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111867718@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD03A6@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11187F8FB@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:58:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtDnXafE=3R-7X9vL1TaYMauYL56JFfyJoTztDMbe4DqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e79887dcc9004cb942afd
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkqfwovdcJrB0ekfSsJYJ9I0cy19FtJ+wUqoG2TDS8H7O6ezcA7R6eiiMWtncVuN/uEj4bS
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
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: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:58:58 -0000

Cullen,

I have an existing interop problem with SIP serial forking that I cannot
solve with the proposed schema. With PRANSWER, how would I handle SIP
UPDATE sith SDP received in early dialog?

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy@cisco.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:47 , Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to discuss the different alternatives in order to support
> forking, e.g. whether we use cloning, whether we simply set additional
> local descriptor, and whether we can get rid of PRANSWER.
>
> Seriously? we have discussed this so many times and always come to the
> same conclusion. I have not seen anything on the list that suggests why we
> need to remove this or how mapping to SIP 180 with sequential forking is
> going to work without it. It also has other important uses. There are a
> bunch of changes that are needed to the JSEP draft to remove some of the
> inconsistencies in this and clarify some parts but I'd rather wait till we
> had that updated before we got into a whole discussion about exploding it
> yet again.
>
> Why don't we have a phone call to try and outline what the problems you
> are trying to solve that the current solution does not work for then figure
> out how much we want to explode this.
>
> I'll note that current clone text has lots of "miracles happen here,
> insert supper fluffy hand wave" in it and plenty of weasel room on failure
> to allocate required resources on the clone. It's more or less a sketch of
> an idea at this point. I'm perfectly happy to see people try and sort out
> the details on clone but using it explode the consensus we have come to
> around PRANSWER seems like a really bad idea at this point.
>
> Cullen
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>