Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 8, 2012, at 23:41 , Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>>> I would like to discuss the different alternatives in order to support forking, e.g. whether we use cloning, whether we simply set additional local descriptor, and whether we can get rid of PRANSWER.
>> 
>> Seriously? we have discussed this so many times and always come to the same conclusion. I have not seen anything on the list that suggests why we need to remove this or how mapping to SIP 180 with sequential forking is going to work without it.
> 
> You CAN do serial forking also with cloning (or, as suggested by Martin, simply setting additional local descriptors).
> 
> I am not blindly suggesting to remove PRANSWER (I have been one of the defenders for having it). It's part of the more general "JSEP Offer/Answer Usage" issue, which we DO need to make sure we get right.

agree - sounds like we are on same page 

> 
>> It also has other important uses. There are a bunch of changes that are needed to the JSEP draft to remove some of the inconsistencies in this and clarify some parts but I'd rather wait till we had that updated before we got into a whole discussion about 
>> exploding it yet again. 
> 
> I have no problem with that. But, again, we do need to get the JSEP O/A sorted out. My suggesting is still that the base should be RFC 3264, and if we need to "relax" things we should very carefully look at those cases.

I have not seen any reason to relax 3264 yet but if something comes up, agree we should carefully look at the cases. I think we can just do straight up 3264. Arguments that SIP early media in a 180 is not compliant with 3264 are just wrong.

> 
>> Why don't we have a phone call to try and outline what the problems you are trying to solve that the current solution does not work for then figure out how much we want to explode this. 
> 
> Sure. I'd attend such call.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
>