From nobody Thu Feb 4 10:40:40 2021 Return-Path: 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 7AAE83A1705 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:40:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VAbgyfatCLWx for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com (mail-ot1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 432F23A1703 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:40:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id d7so2141595otq.6 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:40:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ci2Ht9X7RU/90in+CAMB+4qsI4rBmjg9e2x+HTrsej8=; b=UxlppefsXpv+1YOeWrL0/MEulZcYlpsPBXffh+8W8+WNb8mykhNZYyZgwF9Tr6rB/w vkDxmheFtXRD6zWVa5u945KFSJouCxyxOZmsOdSswUZLqL6F0mO3/hv4gKb8xax89UBR wW8XBH2DHyb9g7RUxTbVVeMsRUEfzgl8QZTyM6Gy/fhLEEP1edxuPlezUp2hYbIehc+N zMhdNpTfNtG2Hb9+bSq/xf/GWgrpu+7q0woGem1qD7HYGKMxyjXxox58asndzvglfaav 62Dvy762kF1MvHmK1d3g8touB8t6fgWvof/S5DuQykd+OnftsUPRnJbHGejEJgy+u0lo zFDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ci2Ht9X7RU/90in+CAMB+4qsI4rBmjg9e2x+HTrsej8=; b=FizJjWHirq++d2D47Qfyw1/x5gF4LQozBpRkJS+jRHTVZx682IgdsvUsd00lsYu3Re Z77YEaQqD9PHaqOhM7xBX7IwNahU3t+aqCcgnF0LYBiLSAzozekUFQnGxkougPYBW6EE 88fV45sXlbCgBLl0VE+l5Xp6cYWkrrzM4gR2QdRdaKlMkpvmYeHmZq/uPVuFDsXIx7TM m9Rq9HZHAOEeyb1ipGkf5CEENX6D3Sj1hWiuI9DqUtHxjtga2e0P4L4gXpr1aELPZwE4 1M5oew3cwHXe2baurDlMQ5iMQ21MyKxfbi0WBnrDGo3JMaCt7x36hmGbZzwTYb3l9EJS qRzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Tgze6yogE8aik9S4gkzicKKXWoCVIIPIg2JA7HvJAbl0GE1xv CYYpjEuv4CCYgyTwy35ipGeCeY638GIa7doHf3ZuRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0GfjSTgsH0GgxnEQ4kKtZP9zGC5MgMxxyP7NWtnYiGpRoPe1FUu0AGQcYK/Z1oJB1m/H58twhnV1rjoo4bUA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:150a:: with SMTP id k10mr585302otp.144.1612464036083; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:40:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 19:40:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: Christer Holmberg Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , RTCWeb IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001588e305ba870af7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RFC 8855 registries X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 18:40:40 -0000 --0000000000001588e305ba870af7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Obviously ;) El El jue, 4 feb 2021 a las 19:39, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> escribi=C3=B3: > > >> The chairs of that working group, when closing it, made that proposal. > I didn't think it sounded like a crazy idea given both contributed to C23= 8, > but if that was wrong, I'm happy to look for volunteers elsewhere. > > > > I fail to see why WebRTC (or browsers or devices capable of running a > WebRTC stack) need a "unified" messaging protocol. > > There was actually a draft defining a WebRTC data channel usage for BFCP, > but it never progressed. > > Regards, > > Christer > > -- I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo --0000000000001588e305ba870af7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Obviously ;)

El El jue, 4 feb 2021 a las 19:39, Chris= ter Holmberg <christer= .holmberg@ericsson.com> escribi=C3=B3:

>> The chairs of that working group, when closing it, made that propo= sal.=C2=A0 I didn't think it sounded like a crazy idea given both contr= ibuted to C238, but if that was wrong, I'm happy to look for volunteers= elsewhere.
>
> I fail to see why WebRTC (or browsers or devices capable of running a = WebRTC stack) need a "unified" messaging protocol.

There was actually a draft defining a WebRTC data channel usage for BFCP, b= ut it never progressed.

Regards,

Christer

--
I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
--0000000000001588e305ba870af7--