Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 03 June 2013 21:10 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 4B50221F8689 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, 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 Vg6sejFnZFLu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB5721E80A6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jvHK1l0071swQuc51x3YSd; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:03:32 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id jx3Y1l0093ZTu2S3bx3YsV; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:03:32 +0000
Message-ID: <51AD04A4.9010607@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:03:32 -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> <51A8F3EF.9080702@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkfz=qVM_wB21BBOypMTwTjkyG97zAmzHVpA6WHK2DA6w@mail.gmail.com> <51AC7D4F.6090708@omnitor.se> <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com> <51AC8547.1060400@omnitor.se> <CALiegfmeQtzAD_=6bPt77zNYC79iKjneycFS5RGssckNwSqptg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmeQtzAD_=6bPt77zNYC79iKjneycFS5RGssckNwSqptg@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=1370293412; bh=ZzAkiOyBU9EjyPuSfa1yoExRnYbMWm0orlQbGZAoVmA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=KRfAdzTj16sIjLYiQYcixuOa4bErx6cS51pFLajgwVQdTz37LI/eArlsXnnJl1qh2 qcpKGRCtpg5+uWpNhIdmPQDQg45k6GlpnrGpucs2vH/awYIqQjZm8e+nWyj4EFJGAO oh+2ILKJRi5PMPgDKsgRE2/9hG1I1YPgn3J8wmaaNMey/98C2bxrH7J7FEdshFbVzD q0ZhVruvOmOLIO3eVheMlCObYBE1yUxS8CPDwhc13Gfgq2jULel8dM2h8eViy6eClE RejmfSvKdZ12DdUpX+rlDDeARw/aq0IKZS4D2IynMH0xVD+Lxmx73RbP7S+00uWvxw se80o+bGXBGkQ==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:10:30 -0000

On 6/3/13 8:14 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2013/6/3 Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>se>:
>> The use cases draft includes a case titled:
>>
>> 4.2.10.  Simple video communication service with inter-operator calling
>>
>> See:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10#page-9
>
> That will just work if both websites want to offer such a
> inter-website-communication. And that's already feasible. But we don't
> need a new standard (RTT-over-RTP) for allowing two users in different
> websites to intercommunicate via RTT.

It isn't new.

> That can be achieved in multiple
> ways with existing technology (WebSocket, DataChannel) but, still,
> both websites must allow it.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>