Re: [rtcweb] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sat, 22 October 2022 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 D3E22C1526EA; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cB6mfK-VkvW5; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp108.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (smtp108.ord1d.emailsrvr.com [184.106.54.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7842C152576; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp14.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 8ACD0402A0; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 12:06:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9066CBDF-7E1A-4C78-8CEC-7D6BB263ED54"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.74\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <166486428459.52178.7914084272556552199@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:05:43 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Message-Id: <75774753-D20C-400D-97FC-306232BC6132@iii.ca>
References: <166486428459.52178.7914084272556552199@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.200.74)
X-Classification-ID: 0a56bd61-0a0d-4074-935c-e61c97fff3f4-1-1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/atKpEpQ3KiF7kPODmwXvpvjUEEA>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 16:06:21 -0000
> On Oct 3, 2022, at 11:18 PM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > ### Section 4.1.1 > > The change from "max-bundle" to "must-bundle" is unclear to me (but I am not an > expert in this protocol) and, with an apparently significant change, should > there be normative language to ensure transition from 8829 to the -bis ? SDP is not very well designed from forward / backwards compatibility point of view. This is very deliberate to allow clients that implement the new stuff to understand if the client sending to them only implements the old stuff. It’s weird to need to do it this way, but it’d the best way given the limitation of SDP.
- [rtcweb] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-uber… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [rtcweb] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)