IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Prioritization

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Fri, 25 April 2014 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 9FEE61A01E9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 E85Or2Vj_c3s for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD8D1A01DF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:15b:212f:d481:de2b]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BA7E46E76 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:53:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <535A68E1.9090901@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:53:37 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <20140425084726.8812.24604.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <535A21E3.7070008@alvestrand.no> <535A5ACC.9070700@viagenie.ca> <535A6151.1060501@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <535A6151.1060501@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/m52emCYRbVaJhN0kJZKqz9yD1EA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Prioritization
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:53:46 -0000

Le 2014-04-25 09:21, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
>> Suggestion: leave it up to implementations to interpret priority levels
>> however they want. Reword the current text so that it becomes an
>> *example* of what an implementation might do.
> 
> The problem with doing that is that it leads to completely inconsistent
> behaviour.

Understood. But is that something we should care about? I mean, if it
does not lead to application developers doing "if (chrome) ... else if
(firefox) ..." then behaviour inconsistency is of no consequence. I
can't imagine a situation where that would happen if we leave it open.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email