Subject: [rtcweb] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-24: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:42:14 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-24: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found myself wishing that Section 3.8 was a bit clearer about the advantages
of sequential versus parallel forking. I can imagine some of the advantages
because I have a SIP background, and I can dig some of what I was expecting to
see in 3.8.2, but I'm imagining and digging, and I'm betting that the document
could be more explicit about the tradeoffs - just saying "if you're
communicating with a SIP endpoint, most of them can only exchange media with
one endpoint at a time" is already helping.

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:24:52 -0800

Thanks for your comments. Didn't follow what you were saying completely
though, are you asking for some additional discussion about upsides or
downsides of parallel forking (or both)?

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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