IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 09 October 2012 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 3F4FF11E8109 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 EjaeVMOSy9ZE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B421211E810B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so3500664lam.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MYuyQaxHO+7PodtVGjzM5xF+ME4wGJVoEou9vYxbDg4=; b=r87ukVx38E9Wj1gcHDv53RraMPDYJ4uJFqVO2P576JBIkLhvgjoVgOS++Hpl25V2z0 tY6E9ebrZe6K0SxCebMbuPERsCjxeEWMIVGpwUtSX9fFMq1cX9xN56La3fkcmcIPliXX lmPJsYdvodaYAAtoTVueh56KL5rHhN0dzKVOcWYeLyMPiXmdQEjfbrfaeWp5QDz793pL iuMzGsiUBnWHHhQ6dZffv7WPQmqlzfwOYrEpOHFvuUoiLtn0Ik7DPa9YmJHHaoIdIjNR 2hBKbTr3FEYI3AXYV+A07PNCNLg27x+k0xlZtpFzotIR6Tb618x+oHUXwqGxJo3yb9m1 65Ew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.100.197 with SMTP id fa5mr8067539lbb.59.1349798978635; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.83.2 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1118810C3@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <506B0367.4000103@ericsson.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111867718@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD03A6@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11187F8F1@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340BAD087E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1118810C3@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:09:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV8YbbPi3pZt9mBjBfSgkx4EgL=EY0YogpeRobUMQ506w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 16:09:53 -0000

On 9 October 2012 07:16, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> I have not seen any reason to relax 3264 yet but if something comes up, agree we should carefully look at the cases. I think we can just do straight up 3264.

RFC 3264 doesn't describe PRANSWER.  The concept is entirely absent.

   The offerer MAY immediately cease listening for media formats that
   were listed in the initial offer, but not present in the answer.

"the" answer.

> Arguments that SIP early media in a 180 is not compliant with 3264 are just wrong.

I'd be pleased if you could find something concrete that supports
this, because I just re-read 3264 and I can't find anything supporting
your conclusion.

I have no problem with the idea of a well-established status quo that
does not conform to the documents.  That would be consistent with many
other RFCs.  However, if that is the case, perhaps someone could write
this behavior down so that we can use the same definitions.  Clearly,
that isn't happening right now.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status