Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 09 October 2012 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
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 1EAF621F87C7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.129
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lGUMmnoh77Ty for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EF821F8737 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7fea6d000002ccb-fb-5073c70e071a
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A6.9C.11467.E07C3705; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.243]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.96]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:41:19 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:41:17 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
Thread-Index: AQHNpaenkG2ADNG+3EO5+NGGgdEEepewfwQw
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD087E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <506B0367.4000103@ericsson.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111867718@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD03A6@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11187F8F1@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11187F8F1@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrS7/8eIAg5OzeC06JrNZrP3Xzu7A 5DHl90ZWjyVLfjIFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZdzedZGp4DBPxfZmmwbGV5xdjJwcEgImEn8b 1jJC2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjFKHG6s50JwlnAKPFjymvmLkYODjYBC4nuf9ogDSIChhJNe+Yx gdjMAuoSdxafYwexWQRUJKYd3Qs2VFjAUmLR5v1sEPVWEmtuXWeGsI0k1p25ywoyklcgXOJc GzPEqv+MEsde/mEHiXMK+EpcnuEIUs4IdNv3U2ugVolL3HoynwniZgGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9j hagXlbjTvp4Rol5HYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvwep5BQQlTs58wjKBUWwWkrGzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaW VYzCuYmZOenlhnqpRZnJxcX5eXrFqZsYgVFzcMtv3R2Mp86JHGKU5mBREuflStrvLySQnliS mp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoEx5rdKeK3xVtOfqe81rZ4dYZCUY7pXLvJkpkqch1C2bIvU vlORR0Rrl63VZTi+muvO5gMnRNcdCueS+/qmjEFzhd6SZf+uH4xmTG/92ivkKxgS/nD12q8n zk5wffstxfpvWYvcstOHQ4J27N7yvP7Fj4R7E848E5Y75/2pdc3Zp0+NZqvemy/er8RSnJFo qMVcVJwIABmmTlZoAgAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:41:21 -0000

Hi,

>> I would like to discuss the different alternatives in order to support forking, e.g. whether we use cloning, whether we simply set additional local descriptor, and whether we can get rid of PRANSWER.
>
> Seriously? we have discussed this so many times and always come to the same conclusion. I have not seen anything on the list that suggests why we need to remove this or how mapping to SIP 180 with sequential forking is going to work without it.

You CAN do serial forking also with cloning (or, as suggested by Martin, simply setting additional local descriptors).

I am not blindly suggesting to remove PRANSWER (I have been one of the defenders for having it). It's part of the more general "JSEP Offer/Answer Usage" issue, which we DO need to make sure we get right.

> It also has other important uses. There are a bunch of changes that are needed to the JSEP draft to remove some of the inconsistencies in this and clarify some parts but I'd rather wait till we had that updated before we got into a whole discussion about 
> exploding it yet again. 

I have no problem with that. But, again, we do need to get the JSEP O/A sorted out. My suggesting is still that the base should be RFC 3264, and if we need to "relax" things we should very carefully look at those cases.

> Why don't we have a phone call to try and outline what the problems you are trying to solve that the current solution does not work for then figure out how much we want to explode this. 

Sure. I'd attend such call.

Regards,

Christer