Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers

Dzonatas Sol <> Mon, 17 October 2011 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3976221F8A58 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.046
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.331, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99IFkg78S2MH for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A2D21F87FC for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 5so3649584vws.31 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=nMuyq9feN3AUGUzbtLkZ/GxHiZlNXKCfsTF13qOW0/s=; b=yCFWbTlEgwZM+DptkYmTN0nF9hLFCQ5/MGkBgJFQnTas25SFe0B/En37pIqUWvugYd 27pDlHPYq5z6xoBdg4Kmfcygb2lEeHdpzkw1po8XAebCoGB8GnQGREENajfTIXEmmeCu a1btuiY3UchJGNMAKRZk977GkjtzIuvFj9gpw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id kh9mr21893224vdb.117.1318891269769; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41:09 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec547c579a1c89304af864db9
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:41:11 -0000

Hi Ted,

I consider my posts very appropriate and I weigh my posts in on security by
obscurity within well-known physical limits. I respect that not everybody
subscribes to like means of security.

If you can't see in the pix, its shows the real-time link in much less
obscure way that is drawn out than what others desire as plainly written.
That link pointed to strip #216, yet pix #4 is the one I pointed out.

I think that link I put may show "the web" yet not "the internet". We can
not use "the web" in all practical sense of plain English; although, that's
an obvious mobile bias we all want.

I think my point that JSON is some codeword for websocket fits well even if
it is less than best solution.

Thanks for E911 heads up on this list. I thought it would help me find my
lost children being real-time, yet at least people would listen to someone
who really is going through these kinds of use-cases.  Always... W.I.P.:
 draft-ballard-smile-some-how; intro: "the energy comes from somewhere."
Abstract: composure.

There are so many things I can think about how my child would not have been
snatch away in real-time if such-n-such worked, yet technology today still
really sucks for that, especially when people care about their own
litigation and profit than what could have been done for home.

P.S. Seriously, do I need to sign-up for a turing test, again, before I can
get any body to help me solve issues with missing children instead of being
called "bot", especially in real-time. I thought not, so that is why I am
here to help improve the god damn lame duck situation.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> Dzonatas,
> Your emails to the group have become less and less on point over time.
> Please send email to the group only when you have substantive comments on
> the work going on.  If you do not, the chairs may have to consider
> suspending your right to post.
> regards,
> Ted Hardie
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Dzonatas Sol <> wrote:
>> I got this Quantum Vibe link from an /. ad:<>
>> I think that be a link-in-a-link, a meta-link, or a canonical multiplexer
>> in pix#4; it applies to B2B and the server-to-server paradigm is not
>> obvious.
>> ...anymore. ;)
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Harald Alvestrand <>wrote;wrote:
>>> On 07/21/11 02:41, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>  If anything this is an argument for ignoring RTP and RTCP and doing
>>>>> something entirely new that is actually appropriate for what we're
>>>>> trying to build, not living with crap just because there's an RFC for
>>>>> it.
>>>> Not to forget disposing of ancient SDP as well.
>>>> Use standard metadata instead, since it is equally usable for all apps,
>>>> not
>>>> only for RTC apps.
>>> Henry, which standard?
>>> applies to metadata too, I think.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list