IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Wed, 14 September 2011 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 47B0321F8C30 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iw4OKWKLJmnl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52B821F8C2A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.1.177.180] (helo=[172.16.169.201]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1R3syc-0002ag-LS for rtcweb@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:10:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4E70DFF3.1030104@jesup.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:10:11 -0700
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E70C387.1070707@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E70C387.1070707@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP
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: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:08:14 -0000

On 9/14/2011 8:08 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> This leaves us with any signaling incompatibilities when talking to a
> legacy device. If one don't want to use cap-neg I see two directions to go:
>
> 1) RTCWEB end-point will always signal AVPF or SAVPF. I signalling
> gateway to legacy will change that by removing the F to AVP or SAVP.
>
> 2) RTCWEB end-point will always use AVPF but signal it as AVP. It will
> detect the AVPF capabilities of the other end-point based on the
> signaling of the feedback events intended to be used.
>
> I think 1) is cleaner for the future. 2) might be more pragmatic.

I think this is something we should consider; I'll note that WorldGate 
has been using option 2 for the last 7 or so years with no problems.

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email