Subject: [rtcweb] Cloning === bad

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:25:35 -0700

I think that there is a bad assumption at play in this proposal that I
think is important to highlight.

That assumption is, that SIP is the only mechanism by which we are
signaling. This is already a problem because it is possible to enter a
deadlock state in the offer answer state machine that requires
application-level intelligence to address.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:26:06 +0200

> application-level intelligence to address.
I don't believe there's any such assumption here. Most of the demos and 
applications that have been shown on top of WebRTC don't have a single 
line referencing SIP in them.

The assumption I hear made (which I also have some doubts about) is that 
it *must* be *possible* to establish interworking with all the variants 
of functionality done by equipment using the SIP prtocol for signalling 
- that is, the answer to the question of "what do I do in the case that 
SIP uses parallel forking for" must have an answer.

Today's poll result on forking seems to be "in version 1.0, we'll take 
the same action as SIP devices that don't support parallel forking" - ie 
"make it someone else's problem".

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb