Hi Hannes,
At 03:35 23-03-2011, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
.... because many people leave early and so they wouldn't see the plenary :-)
No, it is because it would be the 1st of April. :-)
We actually try our best...
I understand that.
In Section 2:
"This attitude is not particularly surprising given that many
standardization participants in the real-time communication area look
back to a regime that exactly follows a highly standardised eco-
system, namely the telecommunication business."
Does the IAB have an opinion about adopting such a model?
You need to quote the entire paragraph:
Or I could address a very specific question to the IAB. :-)
Two answers:
1) Architecture
[snip]
If we now look at the architecture that is being brought forward in
the RTCWeb debate then you will notice that many of the protocol
building blocks that have been standardized are not really
necessary. They may be used but it is more likely that they will not.
I noticed the "Proprietary over HTTP/Websockets" in
draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-framework-00.
What do we as draft authors want? In Section 4 of
draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00 I collected a few questions
I thought would be useful to ask.
My opinion is that the questions favor a particular approach.
It is not about saying what other people in the IETF must do but
rather to initiate a thought process.
Ok.
If you design a new protocol today you have a couple of design
choices to make. "Should my protocol run on top of HTTP/HTTPS?" may
be one of the questions you run into.
I am not keen about the "one port to serve them all". If we look at
design choices in other areas, such as the equivalent of MX records
for DNS (draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection), we might wonder
whether there is even an architecture to work from.
If you come to the conclusion that this Web stuff is not relevant to
your effort then that's perfectly fine. You have thought about it
and you have reasons why your own approach is more appropriate.
My approach would be overruled by business constraints. We have
reached the point where "this is going to happen whether you like it or not".
2) IAB's opinion
At the moment the IAB does not have a consensus on this topic. The
document you are referencing,
draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00, is an individual
submission (as the filename indicates).
We had discussions about these Web architectural topics in the IAB
but since this document has not been accepted as an IAB document
(which would only mean that the IAB indicates interest to work on
the topic) it is a bit premature to say what the opinion of the
entire IAB could be. On top of that the Nomcom selects IAB members
in a way that they cover a wide range of expertise - not everyone in
the IAB is looking at the application or the real-time area. Hence,
it is fair to say that some IAB members do not yet have a (strong)
opinion about these Web related topics. There was, however, enough
consensus to schedule a plenary discussion about it.
I expected that answer. :-)
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf