Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP

Here's a vote for Option 2.

On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:

> Option 2 is what is documented as the best practice for interoperability
> purposes within the IMTC as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Charles
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Randell Jesup
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:10 AM
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF vs AVP
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb