Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:47 , Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> 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. 

Cullen