Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Sergio Garcia Murillo <> Fri, 31 May 2013 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6FB621F93E1 for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 01:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4fjTZboZWbG for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 01:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A988B21F93DA for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 01:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r16so1293328ead.27 for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 01:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9ah7Caj88zNiOPiE+zVSc3Op9TazwTlFuHwgYYBzJWM=; b=EKk32KhrNKd6+hJ9Z3yNtbJEfuB7pEzgnm2u8WP81uyCex9kGyPf4IKNLzwmbSkWVB a8GoFfCb58GMkzuq0+zcFWMZS9bJouUqpndIeA66dfIaN+FUX6XA1MrV42kBb5LOEm6x 1Z/k1CwQ6/0etKIPvNTvpUQxN7E/pzCQ0s219KwIQqu4EFHyks0J+zkPrtui9MXuRNza PADnTS0lojd9LCe7ZmCqjzFJzIZ9TRzrZ2jNCSk1MjVODdIvkrE5nMfliCdnDl23kTZi WRP7pjx37/1LWd3jX3dRXMTMaYoZEMGE7Et0gKbcb/2iA2F24poDSPTJdrgf/G4VzCo5 wG2w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a41mr2950984eez.39.1369988321792; Fri, 31 May 2013 01:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z52sm65272022eea.1.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 May 2013 01:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:18:43 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:18:44 -0000

El 31/05/2013 7:32, Gunnar Hellstrom escribió:
> On 2013-05-31 00:06, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
>> El 30/05/2013 23:33, Iñaki Baz Castillo escribió:
>>> 2013/5/30 Gunnar Hellstrom <>se>:
>>> Indeed. I understand Gunnar requirements for RTT, but as you say, to 
>>> connect to legacy devices you would need a gateway in the middle 
>>> anyway. If the gateway support datachannels, It would be fairly 
>>> trivial to bridge the real time text data from T140 rtp packets 
>>> from/to the browser.
> Yes, agreed, a data channel is one possible transport for real-time 
> text and we need to get down to describing the alternatives and decide 
> soon. What I am getting afraid of when I see the limited 
> interperabillity discussion in "No Plan" is that we will not get a 
> chance to specify the full view of the really needed interoperability. 
> The mechanisms are tied to RTP characteristics, such as SSRCs, and it 
> is said that interop beyond that limited scope will be an application 
> concern. If this is the only place where we will discuss common 
> specifications for SIP interoperability, then I want RTT to ride with 
> this train and not be left alone on the station.

How "No Plan" is limiting interoperability for RTT? Supporting RTT is an 
orthogonal topic to No Plan/Plan A/Plan B as they are about how to 
handle different multiple tracks of the already defined media types. If 
RTT media tracks are finally supported by webrtc, they will be handled 
by "No Plan" automatically, and will be in fact handled the same way as 
it is done today in RTT sip clients, so in fact "No Plan" makes 
interoperability easier, not harder.

Best regards