Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 31 May 2013 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 7B8FD21F86F5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 qxhrRnrC4gWF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8687221F86AE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.73]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ighm1l0011ap0As51j3C9z; Fri, 31 May 2013 19:03:12 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ij3B1l01Q3ZTu2S3ij3BZ3; Fri, 31 May 2013 19:03:12 +0000
Message-ID: <51A8F3EF.9080702@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:03:11 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1370026992; bh=eRFwkKMIAowE3ponEC77C5O5+vQBGhreFYcDKb7P6n0=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=VhUBAoGDjyvofG2rIP9UbjNMRJceuMH1ys9lNvCOKfUIjNRuYHQ6aU84DaYAS5HD0 WDQUOk/7EmoKY2QPY13z+7GImbZpsfsJrxisKeIv1XrWDnWpIZQnERu1GnrDfTFXRI DrzU3HcyunXCvwBnicqqrhpxv07PlZ0BnM+JVKbfvE6L3RFTKg4h+dcJwfRKxV9245 vfipR0FOcysJzBtpPUmWVmM2+KJJI7zKwZoc+yaSpkmEIc1ereAWMLaO8wzCQ2Oqbi deJXvSHQ0gDRHjOKT0JeLF0xszvqMtWeJA3Zu3S/+lPfW72K1f+RNh16nJbRQnOG40 ow9YtuxTaO9Cg==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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: Fri, 31 May 2013 19:03:18 -0000

On 5/31/13 8:35 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> I do not understand why modern communication users accept to see a
>> chat state indication of "composing" instead of really seeing what text is
>> composed. With real-time text you get rid of the frustration that
>> "composing" creates.
>> Now, this was not meant to be a repetition of the motivations for real-time
>> text, but a discussion on interoperability requirements and sdp handling.
>
> That can be implemented on top of DataChannel anyway, I see no need
> for mandating it as a new RTP media stream negotiated via SDP.

IIUC, Gunnar is expecting that virtually every app that provides real 
time voice communication should also provide RTT. (And this has a habit 
of showing up as a legal mandate.)

Leaving the decision about how to transport RTT to be reinvented by each 
application doesn't seem like a good way to achieve that.

If that is good enough for RTT, then why not voice and video too? Just 
send it over a data channel in any format you like. We don't need to 
standardize how to do it.

	Thanks,
	Paul