[rtcweb] #22: Section 4.3: Negotiation requirement

"rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sun, 25 August 2013 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 E31DC11E80F8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9RziLNkBtowk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FFF11E80D2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60186 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1VDik2-0005ZL-Hj; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:25:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
X-Trac-Project: rtcweb
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:25:02 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/22
Message-ID: <066.06808f782ff829d089ef906c558013c8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 22
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: csp@csperkins.org, jorg.ott@aalto.fi, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20130825222504.37FFF11E80D2@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] #22: Section 4.3: Negotiation requirement
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:25:05 -0000

#22: Section 4.3: Negotiation requirement

 support for all RTP payload formats MUST be negotiated before
    they are used.

 [BA] Why is this a requirement for WebRTC applications?  Couldn't an
 application set the payload formats it wants to use in the API without
 negotiating them on the wire?

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-
  bernard_aboba@hotmail.com          |  usage@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  critical                 |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  rtp-usage                |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/22>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>