Re: [rtcweb] Requesting a new use case / requirement for draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 30 July 2013 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 9C33721F9A13 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 CZPla7dNHbAV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f42.google.com (mail-qe0-f42.google.com [209.85.128.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB9D11E81FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f42.google.com with SMTP id s14so3127030qeb.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=+fxz/qNxABy6rxckdh5kCF2INpPTE/D5XcY471M23Rk=; b=kT+GqDa/FlSSVbPQgwV1TwEFRk4d9kTxHBL4AcSjkw1giKG1us7n6BZ8dPiIcivhS6 0ExenfLpoXJ8O6PzBOUIeGypeCyo/ATcN3o1pRwsvdIzbDD/izWFDRrPmkkzCoQQUvvz Sq2r1Nf6Ws3SBCbowcyL2C7VjmlA2XXsH7v/koWHHj3eAwOomqdMwbI0lUMOAvkgYHLV z7GP3S/v7uQa2jBVmXu7FtbqLu5mOAri14YBNklaQ2VhRelUiNJKHyDkxPPojsA+LTli 5aL7FIU1GGEY7+7t5bHgWb+p4FnLYqrohSN6JfokzI1r7guzm7FI0tabHVNf+c7ZwbMp RqDQ==
X-Received: by 10.224.182.79 with SMTP id cb15mr79607274qab.48.1375196771096; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCg7VfBnKAgAg3upUyF3DGDXOdHzRbxsZ_TaWKnz1-p9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegf=uFvE7-H_6a3fwApenUVdp8HAhOhh1f7YWbT0BQFt9Ug@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCg7VfBnKAgAg3upUyF3DGDXOdHzRbxsZ_TaWKnz1-p9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:05:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=OA0yUZ+02sd-Qu8ShS_G85-5z144krupqz4oVo6e=cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8436BFEjpcXy5rPzAR/7So+7j0sQxf+L6dCO7a4f94WI8V1jZ6qgyTlaWbiTJqoFIRrOn
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements <draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting a new use case / requirement for draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements
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, 30 Jul 2013 15:06:32 -0000

2013/7/30 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>:
> "The conference server must be able to reply a single response accepting the
> offer and indicating the browser all the media tracks from other
> participants it will send to it. This must be possible without requiring a
> new media negotiation round trip, and without requiring that the browser
> knows the number of participants in the conference before contacting it."
>
> is not appropriate for a use case.  It's a proposed constraint on the
> solution, rather than a description of the use.

Hi Ted, I agree that the above is not an use case but a requirement.
But in contrast to what you say, I don't consider it a "constrain".
Instead I consider a constrain the current SDP O/A mandate which does
not let me implementing the above (the opposite is not true).

Should I request a new "requirement" for the draft instead of a new use case?


Best regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>