IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 10 December 2014 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041391A1A31 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:09:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nVtcQ9wnq89r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B281A00BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DC27C09BB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:09:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kSWT44aoUbYv for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:68db:b80d:1b40:19e2] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:68db:b80d:1b40:19e2]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AA927C3557 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54888C56.2060009@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:09:26 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dsv9W9_x+RroLdsAKyhNAFGGdCTm9P3BMf1_L0XzB8UBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPEp-ujLfoYp+C8_cvyQ9EdEAkn_o6aFpuXEdN_N18YZw@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35E2BB@XMB111CNC.rim.net>, <54885FA3.3060602@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D58C9A8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35E6EF@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35E6EF@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ElJXp2uHfFWYCeL6XoP5-XhLgv4
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:09:36 -0000

Den 10. des. 2014 18:59, skrev Gaelle Martin-Cocher:
> The main problem is with what the terminology covers and its
> inconsistent usage.
> 
>  
> 
> The WebRTC gateway in
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways-01.txt is
> defined as a WebRTC-compatible endpoint with some requirements being
> applied to it.
> 
> I am not sure how the last sentence in the WebRTC-compatible endpoint
> definition  “It is not constrained by this specification…”  applies to
> the gateway.

Renaming the term is certainly possible.

And this thread has certainly made the point that the -gateways draft
needs to be informative, not standards-track.


> 
>  
> 
> If a mobile app is centered around text or text and audio, it should not
> be relegated in the WebRTC-compatible endpoint category and should be
> able to benefit from the WebRTC non browser/endpoint terminology .
> 
>  
> 
> If a WebRTC-compatible endpoint supports everything but a subset of
> functions (e.g. does not support bundle)  there could be requirements
> applied to it; in IETF or in other standardization groups that are
> referring to the IETF terminology.


I see absolutely no reason to go down this path.
If you want a standard that specifies conformance to a spec that is part
of the WebRTC spec, you are of course free to try to do so.

But I see no reason to join in on that journey.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email