Re: [rtcweb] #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 E0A8321E823D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:24:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.293
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 3jLrixvmn7jI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:24:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279A821E811A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W54 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:24:46 -0800
X-TMN: [7VlheAGRpa8A3/2opRXlcO517j/UbgVM]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W54BE77F4EF63AD10E3734C93F10@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_50871cad-b513-46a5-b6e2-c253191cd270_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:24:45 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <52783076.8040909@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <066.e25c55f4beabdbb9b445f98350fa83ad@trac.tools.ietf.org>, <081.57895a6b03345471a2f1c4670beb7362@trac.tools.ietf.org>, <52783076.8040909@bbs.darktech.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2013 00:24:46.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[6EA2EA60:01CED9BD]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement
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, 05 Nov 2013 00:24:52 -0000

I resolved this issue as fixed because RTP Usage document -10  Section 4.4 no longer mandates SDP signaling on the wire. 
 
Feel free to file an issue if you find a remnant of this problem elsewhere in the document. 
 

 
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:40:38 -0500
> From: cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement
> 
> On 04/11/2013 6:38 PM, rtcweb issue tracker wrote:
> > #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement
> >
> > Changes (by bernard_aboba@hotmail.com):
> >
> >   * status:  new => closed
> >   * resolution:   => fixed
> >
> >
> 
>      <sigh> Here we go again. I'd love to know how the WG plans to 
> remove SDP as an implementation detail from version 2.0 if version 1.0 
> explicitly mentions the use of SDP (instead of an opaque token).
> 
> Gili
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb