Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Lorenzo Miniero <[e-mail]> 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
thoughts).

regards,

Ted Hardie