Re: [Rum] Call for WG adoption of: draft-rosen-rue-01

Richard

Yes, but my understanding is that the RUE is a "WebRTC endpoint" and provider a "WebRTC-compatible endpoint" but the current text doesn't make any distinction. 

I just wanted to make sure that we will establish wording that makes clear points that are important for compatibility. 

Best regards

James

________________________________________
From: Richard Shields <richard@sorenson.com>
Sent: 13 September 2019 16:22
To: James Hamlin; rum@ietf.org
Cc: Paul Kyzivat
Subject: RE: [Rum] Call for WG adoption of: draft-rosen-rue-01

Thanks, James.

Section 5 of RFC 7742 states this:

"WebRTC-compatible endpoints" are free to implement any video codecs
   they see fit.  This follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-
   compatible endpoint".  It is, of course, advisable to implement at
   least one of the video codecs that is mandated for WebRTC browsers,
   and implementors are encouraged to do so.

Does that not alleviate the requirement to implement VP8?

Thanks,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: James Hamlin [mailto:james.hamlin@purple.us]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Richard Shields <richard@sorenson.com>; rum@ietf.org
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Rum] Call for WG adoption of: draft-rosen-rue-01

[EXTERNAL]

Richard

This was mentioned and I think the provider side is "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". But the text currently in 7.3 and 7.4 treats provider and RUE identically.

Best regards

James
________________________________________
From: Richard Shields <richard@sorenson.com>
Sent: 13 September 2019 16:02
To: James Hamlin; rum@ietf.org
Cc: Paul Kyzivat
Subject: RE: [Rum] Call for WG adoption of: draft-rosen-rue-01

This may have been brought up before. RFC 7742, referenced in section 7.3, has three endpoint definitions: a WebRTC browser, a WebRTC non-browser, and a WebRTC-compatible endpoint,  with different levels of MTI regarding VP8. With the proposed RUE document, what are VRS endpoints considered?

Thanks,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Rum [mailto:rum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Hamlin
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 8:41 AM
To: rum@ietf.org
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Rum] Call for WG adoption of: draft-rosen-rue-01

[EXTERNAL]

Paul

I think we agreed that OPUS and VP8 wouldn't need to be supported on the provider side, for good reasons. The draft proposed for adoption seems to contradict this with "RUE and Providers MUST" in sections 7.3 and 7.4 .

Is the procedure that the document is adopted, with some agreed changes missing, and then amended?

Best regards

James
________________________________________
From: Rum <rum-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: 10 September 2019 20:53
To: rum@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rum] Call for WG adoption of: draft-rosen-rue-01

Reminder,

This call for adoption will end next Sunday. All responses so far have been in support, but there haven't been a lot of them. If you haven't yet responded, please do.

        Thanks,
        Paul, as RUM co-chair

On 8/29/19 9:50 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> This is a call for the adoption of draft-rosen-rue-01 as a RUM wg
> document. This is intended to evolve into the document our charter
> calls for.
>
> Comments, pro or con, on this proposal are due by Sunday September 15.
>
>      Thanks,
>      Paul Kyzivat, as RUM co-chair
>

--
Rum mailing list
Rum@ietf.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,XvDLRFtOorYTD_ZHqiyi_6x1eB_6gpdbTan7J17J5oZXHwBsGhr18IwuVwzvg_zkMdHAf0ubd1nNm-m4DNvAqH2M7I7ipp3wdXgwAUBL0XHEd7ncuIhgpdZkwg,,&typo=0

--
Rum mailing list
Rum@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum