Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 07 August 2012 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B3A21F867D for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.091
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.492, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQ1e5o1RU+CX for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C802021F8611 for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14so2401241wib.13 for <>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lH1+QqJV80PTBFxE3BBBYaq2LJBg+dryGqhdeKitUX4=; b=CiQz7SgYJe7d8aT5/J+5QNXV4FfceScU9Socytgas3FSTizB8ZSrNrKM24TWA4lilQ 4xXCyJjHmJEJEOS+IK8/0nQtV8/J3dd6IJeKqXAchgUWrWK/395BuPdFrNMQrglNoIYD pS8oOdzlns+RjFIM08BnC31qeprxglGsnVPGKiy7a0n1B0xVnZY9gZ+RE3ytq6SvHADg 54knl0VEF9bSkerSErgtiEQayplKpkyC2m5utM22zjF3aP90QR9EX7yL9SGWo3AiD9zS IVBFMRULzk+BhXhxHyDFAGEKptf7GzgHI2PmDhUtqr5R2Je9hxseAN9ajGbR1NVdhOn9 bq2Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id gu9mr29315942wib.20.1344361807927; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120807180156.286e74d2@rainpc>
References: <20120807180156.286e74d2@rainpc>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: Lorenzo Miniero <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:50:10 -0000

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Lorenzo Miniero <> wrote:
> That said, I guess there's a different question I should be asking to
> the chairs: since there seems to be no related item in the milestones,
> is such a work actually in line with what is the expected outcome of the
> WG? Considering the draft basically addresses a new transport for RTP
> and something that probably needs to be negotiated as well, I guess this
> could be seen as belonging elsewhere (AVTCORE and/or MMUSIC?).
> Nevertheless, my feeling is it belongs more here than somewhere else,
> especially considering we're specifying a solution that will be deployed
> in browsers and, as such, people will expect it to work wherever other
> web applications do.

My take on this is that the actual work on developing the alternate
transport for RTP would have to occur elsewhere and, frankly, I think
it is a large enough task that it would likely require its own working
group (much as the RTP congestion control topic ended up as a BoF and
hopefully will become its own working group).  That doesn't mean that
the work couldn't be informed by the RTCWEB use cases, but I think it
would have to be done elsewhere.

I'd personally suggest starting with a discussion with the ADs on
whether a BoF on this topic would be something they might consider.
(Note, however, that I have not talked to Cullen about this and Magnus
is on vacation, so this is not a "Chairs' response"; just my own


Ted Hardie