Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 03 June 2013 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 3600E21F9985 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 0KciGm+612dE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f47.google.com (mail-qe0-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D6F21F8693 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 1so496154qec.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=v8Ui+9dDhBp0wmBTGIv8313v0TcPh2fJtK45MNbSm44=; b=ZtUQjrz8E9XAnuNQCXgrbtXH6ie+6qbowF5DynaRSphcMyXDFg8qT3YN8fwSTAkdOn 9l9kHt78asnkhR/dpx7+ncUKz2Y/JQ3i6fZ5uIX++FZ2u9bONKFmLr8nOrHQlD605pCl Uaz2EIFrL1pug8lAuDjv50yI3eRsTRN6yiqS2kEcQS4W16j2GE+PtusszfNhgv5h1cEg 3JISy0IwaYHt6cAZGMpm2U82InVwjZF54Y00Rxi/dT6OhR8q0SiBJ66in1AWeO22aEzb U8v4D3NIMBehyI124ShePegnVB+3v9LPqqcryaym8JXwEEgKE7h+aPZ9YgKtib5MW5gl AoqA==
X-Received: by 10.229.106.20 with SMTP id v20mr8017834qco.129.1370274091111; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.26.103 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51AC9BDF.2050404@omnitor.se>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F3EF.9080702@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkfz=qVM_wB21BBOypMTwTjkyG97zAmzHVpA6WHK2DA6w@mail.gmail.com> <51AC7D4F.6090708@omnitor.se> <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com> <51AC8547.1060400@omnitor.se> <CALiegfmeQtzAD_=6bPt77zNYC79iKjneycFS5RGssckNwSqptg@mail.gmail.com> <51AC9BDF.2050404@omnitor.se>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:41:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnUSrGnGuQjzzwvaYKLg20VDdmsKf1jY8FZLEW7AWk4uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoD3Mc7vMopAZnY7u16ueIzF3NsjX8+Bef3YRwXB7ecXpQveBE8sZyQj99M3K3w7Sa0uME
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )
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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:41:36 -0000

2013/6/3 Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>se>:
> The inter - operator communication is also described in the overview:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06#section-3
>
> It is because it can be done in multiple ways that we need a standard for
> it. And a standard that combines audio, video and real-time text in the same
> session.
>
> Outside of that it is of course valuable to have 1000 other ways to do it.
> But that does not reduce the need for a standard.


There are tons of ways of implementing chat or RTT in current
websites, but no one of them implements RT chat with users of a
different website. A WG standard will not change this reality and the
lack of interest. Said that, "SDP m=text" would just become an uneeded
and unrequested complexity.




--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>