IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 05 November 2013 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.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 0C5F221E80DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 7A3MioWERnai for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFA111E814B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id at1so14055546iec.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:31:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=O6SwptDyhOVfumN+3ny6C1mTIraFGGDSvqJg4nVWItc=; b=BgVA+xHuhLo7yoZR+37+VcOhhlLdv0eJnFUPtPMzybqoeiURs5hYhuJZt7TgDd4P9z n6266j/4G2Exj0tmfzthK8nXe1ujc9gd/sq4b6xUob058i7tEgnpBmfij8/QDXQ6YVEA P6/4g+7pDk7dLt6ZDteAsAJYl9Xca9bQGLsWIxk4/sAI489LKHGX0A5iN9iwdLo3LzHb tPXcMBVneSRkYs911GobG+nj4x0ajJ2B0alWfBJbwZ/I/DjHd9kiEM2qbS2kpCBoqCw8 gn7RTXSK2Zf+E29VWSW2yYPYV7dvdsRPUAT8gaBLf53TykcYxRIc1vlTg0VEBf94NUwo sRjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlpKzy57DkGHKVWsN/GjxeCBnm4MSw/XULto0/z+/m3o6yCx6BhYE3MEQR9j/B8oTCaEliK
X-Received: by 10.50.61.179 with SMTP id q19mr14094711igr.33.1383615062730; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f19sm5698617igz.1.2013.11.04.17.31.01 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52784A54.1050003@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 20:31:00 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <066.e25c55f4beabdbb9b445f98350fa83ad@trac.tools.ietf.org>, <081.57895a6b03345471a2f1c4670beb7362@trac.tools.ietf.org>, <52783076.8040909@bbs.darktech.org> <BLU169-W54BE77F4EF63AD10E3734C93F10@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W54BE77F4EF63AD10E3734C93F10@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010804060701040800020006"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement
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, 05 Nov 2013 01:31:09 -0000

     Good to hear. Thanks for the clarification.

Gili

On 04/11/2013 7:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I resolved this issue as fixed because RTP Usage document -10  Section 
> 4.4 no longer mandates SDP signaling on the wire.
>
> Feel free to file an issue if you find a remnant of this problem 
> elsewhere in the document.
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:40:38 -0500
> > From: cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement
> >
> > On 04/11/2013 6:38 PM, rtcweb issue tracker wrote:
> > > #23: Section 4.4 SDP signaling requirement
> > >
> > > Changes (by bernard_aboba@hotmail.com):
> > >
> > > * status: new => closed
> > > * resolution: => fixed
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <sigh> Here we go again. I'd love to know how the WG plans to
> > remove SDP as an implementation detail from version 2.0 if version 1.0
> > explicitly mentions the use of SDP (instead of an opaque token).
> >
> > Gili
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email