[rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 07 May 2013 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 1560621F870F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 11:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TiXx96F-Qupc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2D521F855A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r47IUU11010883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 13:30:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 13:30:30 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
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, 07 May 2013 18:30:33 -0000

In order to facilitate discussion between the two SDP format 
alternatives we're considering, I've put together a document that more 
clearly spells out the Plan A approach as we originally envisioned it. 
Note that this is a slightly different approach than Cullen outlined in 
Orlando. I fear the Orlando approach may have suffered from its attempts 
to incorporate some elements of Plan B in an attempt to appease 
proponents of that approach; and, in doing so, lost some of its clean 
architecture.

The cleaned up, new-and-improved description of the Plan A approach is 
available here:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-rtcweb-plan-a-00.txt

Note that we've omitted discussion of glare reduction from that 
document, as I believe that mid-session glare can be completely avoided 
by applications implementing a set of non-normative behaviors. These 
behaviors are described in the a separate companion document:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-rtcweb-glareless-add-00.txt

Thanks.

/a