IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10 - real-time text

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sun, 03 February 2013 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 27D0021F8A84 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:33:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o+oo7XcxCXyH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s15.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s15.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BF721F89DC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU404-EAS180 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s15.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:33:33 -0800
X-EIP: [OaHxjFwDSMrQt3/6ctKZjmRSATx3uslmVHWSNGXzBaM=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU404-EAS1806A8F1496C3D027E304FB93020@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: 'Martin Thomson' <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, 'Ted Hardie' <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <BLU002-W149D09F7296C2465CA4968093030@phx.gbl> <CA+9kkMCkJN5TrUA=UWu1g2D5p_RHcBVu3C1zK323hrrd84n+Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVVsn74Cff8JtFTUQ1B9NgaU1YYkJ7LmxbyzH2qNVyF0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVVsn74Cff8JtFTUQ1B9NgaU1YYkJ7LmxbyzH2qNVyF0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:33:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQABAgME1fHPTStaFOtbvJc4Sj0orACDi3OOAPkA9isAtloMbABT+X2+AEwPz9oA5i3U3wC1D+P8AO218DsA//HdA5vPo6zA
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2013 19:33:33.0589 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A92C450:01CE0245]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10 - real-time text
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
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: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:33:34 -0000

Martin said:

"I'm highly sympathetic to the view that emergency services should not be regarded as special.  The argument goes: "If emergency services are special, how do I know that the special parts work when I need them?  They aren't used all the time."

[BA] Exactly.   If all of the emergency services functionality that we need isn't already covered by mainstream WebRTC use cases and requirements, the answer isn't to change the use cases.   Even use cases that we expect to be frequently utilized will have bugs.   So why would anyone want to risk their life on non-mainstream use cases that are much less likely to be extensively used and tested?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email