IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 11 April 2018 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 59F4E12D72F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGPllYX0_O3p for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C8A1271FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w3BKAOLL023683 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:10:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com> <63282b84-4493-3fcb-a95f-4afe17d96bb6@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-1gTq+EEjb+-q-T-pABBW--rpNGegoj_d2_7f7AKGksCA@mail.gmail.com> <403713b4-31d4-9085-d639-d3f60935ed5a@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-0ED-FK=JmSxBJYfM=PCdgY6kmbiq6aFLcP7OXugG07EA@mail.gmail.com> <e6938f7d-542d-736b-0a3d-9269d7dd06e5@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOW+2dv1ORz2tEkgDTvdM1DtgyOdgXqKU30T4QhLAp1NT+rirg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0tCcg3FdzyfSJ6Y3JaH-TivFf-Sey6+tD8BANJKsjqtQ@mail.gmail.com> <1fceb3c4-35f3-34f7-de1d-79d5805e6d22@gmail.com> <9517D601-D3E8-46E1-94E5-7EC29FD6319B@sn3rd.com> <b5d323ac-2205-2aee-05c9-f270e80215f5@gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0+hr-NddbLCwgjkfyEFEzoLYW8BcE5OYZ+HUiqDRnarg@mail.gmail.com> <0dee004d-159a-a9be-a0b8-ecbfd4204d72@gmail.com> <06252a76-f12e-4d8d-4a07-5240a7605bce@gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <914e0220-e3cc-00d7-0925-e5deb8b07e75@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:10:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <06252a76-f12e-4d8d-4a07-5240a7605bce@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/yG7uV95Gny1hjaQ_Rgvy3zlvO7s>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:10:29 -0000

[as an individual]

On 4/11/18 1:15 PM, Lennart Grahl wrote:
> Since I haven't seen a satisfactory response so far, let me rephrase
> this as a question: Can anyone explain to me why that approach is not
> considered a valid alternative to getUserMedia?


I think you're not getting a lot of response here because what you're 
proposing is well within the bounds of what the current document says. 
gUM is offered as a non-normative example, but that's all it is. If you 
believe that document changes are in order, perhaps a concrete proposal 
along the lines of "change the text <x> to be <y> instead" or "add text 
<z> at the end of section <q>" would produce more conversation.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email