Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling: Glare handling

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 A1C2E21F8BC3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 T1KNpxlb3LIS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD7A21F8BBD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so765969vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.147.201 with SMTP id m9mr211710vcv.210.1318952707451; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.161.20 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmuxvwqJMppy4DC7162T4TrCjM3O_FnfpyNujDFuy9o+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com> <4E9D8D82.707@ericsson.com> <CALiegfmuxvwqJMppy4DC7162T4TrCjM3O_FnfpyNujDFuy9o+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:44:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO3etudH9=259zTU4vwLZNcPoPCJ=N1xy47KDEfecH+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling: Glare handling
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, 18 Oct 2011 15:45:08 -0000

I'm not sure I agree with this. 2-5 seconds isn't really that long to
wait for the
interval between the caller starting the call and the callee being alerted. I'm
not saying it's optimal, but I don't think it's unacceptable either. Moreover,
even if we agree that we're using something other than short poll, I
suspect there will be many applications that use long poll rather than
WS.

-Ekr



On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:
> 2011/10/18 Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>;:
>> For example an JS application that uses short polling for retrieving any
>> incomming ROAP messages, as that is timer based and done lets say every
>> 5 seconds
>
> Hi. This is RTC, so *realtime* is required for media sessions. I
> expect that people should assume WebSocket usage rather than HTTP
> polling.
>
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>;
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>