IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00 expired

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 22 January 2014 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DABF1A03B6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:30:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8j_dBFlGIU4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com (mail-qa0-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9FF1A00D7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id w8so718310qac.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:30:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q6pToCLCOFJFH3Hc/5tfrJUKVs9LZlPdYSep4ZsG0Q8=; b=lF/Gx2H6WIIlRZG+XqyHF7Z61pThoxPX3W9ui9JW8B3+CWOHstEhANZHRtPnD5OgSc Z0Ja/iAFQJhxLAtZ6sreKPZMnJJdwto2qV5sHdcH8yeK7sK1Ub6FO8/Mw5dKH8yvxlIC seAl5X++lpNMuWCEJL9XTt5ntMkEskWIwkdwd2XfvClmb8BfCc8Qf4Tv0kjslApYfZOK qE4AWzD9xKx0AwQ2DYMIOUVz5ax/VjgDUXpGWeCBfuFPbSPAY/eMGJWWLc6qeuBQlqXI eLYB0vhf1txPDG2h8w7JuDZpqGfTBhomB7pU8IxdOpvljfpXyOGU9MsESIrgD5zLNU9f o7jg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsTLp/Tp5jA7GxyOFkFxw90YkAvTwQqCUN0ORg63T0Fz3dbQr2X33woHiyCs6toz+4+rYZ
X-Received: by 10.140.109.228 with SMTP id l91mr3713290qgf.72.1390408230639; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:30:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.101.232 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:30:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52DFD9C2.4070804@nostrum.com>
References: <CALiegfkJe1QfMcPoDg4+71oujHUzJy86_pnLXDO9C=g_v8_4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D107730@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfkhs5JeVj-2YL2QJgwMgB1cP77aUZEWdoywQCpQd_O6Ag@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D10819E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfmyOayaz41FM+3xF733srs8MUKGMumW7nAfT53EnfEaWw@mail.gmail.com> <52DD7889.8030209@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfn1CwsOmN7TdFvBG-5590q9dmyhyRJK3H6u15Ux6H=LNQ@mail.gmail.com> <52DFD9C2.4070804@nostrum.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:30:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfmY6skMkWD5F6NVP-hUaEONU0yPKq-W9r1bL73mkjGLOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00 expired
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:30:32 -0000

2014/1/22 Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>:
> On 1/22/14 08:34, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>> This is completely unnecessary if we skip the SDP tradition. There is no
>> need at all for endpoint-A to tell endpoint-B "you can send me up to 8 audio
>> tracks since I have added 8 m audio lines in my SDP offer, otherwise you can
>> only send me a single audio track, but you can send me later a re-offer".
>> This is something that ORTC "fixes".
>
>
> Continually attempting to re-litigate a closed point of consensus is
> disruptive. Please stop.

It was not my intention to re-open the discussion. It is just that,
AFAIK, the complete usage of SDP in WebRTC is not yet fulfilled and
hence I thought there is still room for proposals regarding the
Unified Plan specification.

Sorry if I was wrong in this matter.

Best regards.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email