Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda RTCWeb call on September 8th

Dzonatas Sol <> Tue, 30 August 2011 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CF421F8E5C for <>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.076
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.477, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18VT2Nq2oUuc for <>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156EC21F8E54 for <>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iakc1 with SMTP id c1so123433iak.31 for <>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QypGk6xg5RLvvPwCha1lNEzZz9psvnY8DcUzo3z5CkI=; b=Icd919zZnPQKKqc+z65bOooZNnCcH8Rt84bVg2ycXo7TY6/ScF+xT8t8RLojqqjaNw 5e0LYOAic9sMvgLEKIJzwQvA3gbeeLGLSz1w5Afwo5V7+rVg/gxW8kPbTZ+j3/3IPdGI ADZsdfhv2DQSz19SNwXjYF3CqG9Q/gCXJFbo4=
Received: by with SMTP id s9mr4408315icc.499.1314745133144; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id u1sm7137647icj.4.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:00:30 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda RTCWeb call on September 8th
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:57:27 -0000

On 08/30/2011 03:02 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> To clarify a bit further on what we're thinking for next week's
> agenda, the chairs are currently thinking of this time split:
> 1 Hour:  Use case discussion (draft available now)
> 1 Hour:  Security (draft available end of the week)
> --Focus of the discussion will be on what we want to provide as
> assurances to different actors.
> 1 Hour: Signaling
> --Focus of the discussion will be semantics&  path (e.g Offer/Answer or
> alternative?)
> 1/2 Hour: RTP concepts mapping to WebRTC API objects
> --How  flows/streams/sessions map to tracks/connections/tracklists
> 1/2 Hour: Tentative slot for Congestion Control
> Please send any agenda discussion to the as soon as possible, so
> folks are prepping for the right things.

We can't rely on STD-C library or anything out-of-scope of the stable 
toy-story of the Personal Companion Cube (PCC); that means we want any 
"congestional control" in ABI-only, not API, such that the word 
"control" is kept to the digital comprehension only. No more 
ban-hammer's needed by gTLDs because young scientists think STD-C is the 
only ABI comparison; systems that know the truth of quantum spin simply 
use physical simulation for needs and meta-physical needs. Yes, why 
should physical systems "control" meta-physical maps: earthquake? Proven.

In ray-cast systems, the client end doesn't know if the source is 
analogue or digital when not the original signal. Some read my UUID per 
cast with progressive optimization blogs, there is no API needed for 
this ABI with security assets such as this kind of atomic clock (with or 
without real peripherals). "Start with the solution."

Replication is possible in my books, so I'll pause on this evil.

> thanks,
> Ted, Cullen, Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

--- ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant