Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 03 June 2013 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 973AF21F9473 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 vbt12iiESBy4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x236.google.com (mail-qc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A1721F92FC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id n1so2092869qcw.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 05:10:32 -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:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=mds2RNuyPolOiJEQ8umK/e2SrQDyPSuTRmE4AdRjbiI=; b=QJfwvEwhWMjcrINZD/cFOya5PufZVMdynZaTaYBsQBRUM3gILLY6EbQ+9489MBaaiZ in+DXI62QzFA5cfaVix+fY1a1OT4mfb48AAPgbW7R3y13872/hnxKhbLERLFVMNCQ2mb wJwH7rmw06loMTrs+7esIMjiJ3/IzqoQIqMuHZjlEtyGu0CiWkFTHIWkZVv2a3P5LmdE iG5shEaHDAQ32vWrvrD+JLHYkZowPzk3iXm/aK7i2u8+FHcdMzar4fDkEVQTeH1/wGFZ BlMqU+5zchvaeNqYjwQZ14tpHQnlNSZPRZVmNUW1cpsDdYxIl3YZFnWi98qMw6UUnpKI gI6w==
X-Received: by 10.229.149.198 with SMTP id u6mr5919545qcv.20.1370261432307; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 05:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.26.103 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAN=GVAtu+NuOS_Qwfq232Y7z3=XcZFW2MhjriM9mNT7nzno3mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F3EF.9080702@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkfz=qVM_wB21BBOypMTwTjkyG97zAmzHVpA6WHK2DA6w@mail.gmail.com> <51AC7D4F.6090708@omnitor.se> <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN=GVAtu+NuOS_Qwfq232Y7z3=XcZFW2MhjriM9mNT7nzno3mA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:10:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnkLX7mdPEm_2YZu0PEe055gRfKLJrYza5AOpuOq3XZEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMOLLYLLGu2d1y/EhI2wyktsCVxhgpnzJaIcWr7CZ9adt2o/BuDPY9oB/yLa2VgraioL25
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:10:33 -0000

2013/6/3 Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com>om>:
> Real-time voice and real-time video need to agree on encode/decode rules and
> transport.
>
> Real-time text requires the same.
>
> Using your rationale Inaki, then we don't need to standardise RT voice and
> RT video - so WebRTC/rtcWeb is a waste of time!!

I can tell you 100 ways for sending/receiving Real-time Text using
existing technology in browsers. Can you tell me how a browser can
send and receive RT audio/video without proprietary plugins? If there
is no way then we agree that WebRTC spec is needed for providing those
capabilities to browsers, but the same is not true for text.



> Or do you see RT Text as something different to RT Voice and RT Video?

Regardles RT Text is useful or not (it can be for some scenarios) it
can *already* be implemented over the standarized DataChannel (in
which the custom JS app can send/receive text, images, binary content
or whatever in realtime). No need at all to create a new RTP media
type.



--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>