Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Mon, 08 October 2012 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B6B11E809B for <>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQ9D82LZlwCj for <>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E3B11E80CC for <>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1516; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349736784; x=1350946384; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ltvglJ2VV0IwsJPDw4GMEe4wkDdgysFCROUIn7gXLDE=; b=OAuLnT+3a6Wk0R2xkRDOSW/WzMLibLuBzPD+ZQWoMIRmbPAA10zqFb4q zGe2CnYUMT+ZXG5C7hWpm5sywQBurJpLXIT37UuqaamHHqz9ufUKSx0Uj BrI2KmAmvhvX14MXzYU38wKMOP6Mtu3musqpvqKsdzfnC+FzWhI4WJS1C w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAEBYc1CtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFvzGBCIIgAQEBAwESATQyBQsCAQgiJDIlAgQOBQgTB4ddBpo/kQyOdItHgzqBeWADiCOKF5F2gWmCYA2CFw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,556,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="129528539"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2012 22:52:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q98MqsQi019772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:52:54 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:52:54 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
Thread-Index: AQHNpaenkG2ADNG+3EO5+NGGgdEEeg==
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:52:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--30.105700-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
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: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:53:05 -0000

On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:47 , Christer Holmberg <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I would like to discuss the different alternatives in order to support forking, e.g. whether we use cloning, whether we simply set additional local descriptor, and whether we can get rid of PRANSWER.

Seriously? we have discussed this so many times and always come to the same conclusion. I have not seen anything on the list that suggests why we need to remove this or how mapping to SIP 180 with sequential forking is going to work without it. It also has other important uses. There are a bunch of changes that are needed to the JSEP draft to remove some of the inconsistencies in this and clarify some parts but I'd rather wait till we had that updated before we got into a whole discussion about exploding it yet again. 

Why don't we have a phone call to try and outline what the problems you are trying to solve that the current solution does not work for then figure out how much we want to explode this. 

I'll note that current clone text has lots of "miracles happen here, insert supper fluffy hand wave" in it and plenty of weasel room on failure to allocate required resources on the clone. It's more or less a sketch of an idea at this point. I'm perfectly happy to see people try and sort out the details on clone but using it explode the consensus we have come to around PRANSWER seems like a really bad idea at this point.