IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling: Glare handling

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 7B0BA21F8BF6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.94
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.94 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 rBl1WtB1Smo9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016B321F8AE1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so815479vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.182.39 with SMTP id eb7mr2192670vdc.12.1318955068370; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.161.20 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEA92569D512@HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com> <4E9D8D82.707@ericsson.com> <CALiegfmuxvwqJMppy4DC7162T4TrCjM3O_FnfpyNujDFuy9o+A@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO3etudH9=259zTU4vwLZNcPoPCJ=N1xy47KDEfecH+8Q@mail.gmail.com> <AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEA92569D512@HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:23:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP365Zf4_v02baq0Q_p6bF9-_zKKL=9eyb_PXgQtwjMHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: BeckW@telekom.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling: Glare handling
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, 18 Oct 2011 16:24:29 -0000

2011/10/18  <BeckW@telekom.de>:
>
> Ekr wrote:
>> I'm not sure I agree with this. 2-5 seconds isn't really that long to
>> wait for the interval between the caller starting the call and the callee being alerted.
>
> I consider 2-5 s a quite horrible call setup time, and I can tell that customers really care about it. Of course it's acceptable if such a long setup delay only occurs occasionally.

Maybe I'm being unclear: it's not great, but there are plenty of settings
(e.g., online game setup) where it's not really that big a deal. My point isn't
that I wish to design a system with a lot of delay but merely that
(as I think Magnus's message implies) one shouldn't design a system
that only works if the signaling does not have even modest amounts
of delay.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email