<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 04/16/2012 03:48 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8C2347.1050702@ifi.uio.no" type="cite">I'm
not sure my concerns about what is now called RRTCC are answered,
but I think that we pretty much agree design-wise anyway. I'm now
just a bit confused by the mix of 1) arguments against my
suggestion to use only one congestion control instance for
everything (ideally by making all RTCweb flows streams of one SCTP
association), 2) some statements saying "yeah, this was the plan
anyway".
<br>
<br>
Maybe it's because I don't know RTCweb well enough yet, or don't
understand who does what and who plans what... and maybe it's also
because I proposed too many intertwined things in one go
(all-over-SCTP <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>and<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> one congestion control
instance for everything). Whatever. Anyway, I think it's an
interesting discussion <span class="moz-smiley-s1" title=":-)"><span>:-)</span></span>
<br>
</blockquote>
Very possible - my take from RTCWEB side is that media over anything
but SRTP is just not going to happen this year (or perhaps any
year), for reasons having to do with installed base of a lot of
stuff, while having a bridge for congestion control information to
flow between the "media side" and the "sctp side" can be implemented
in each implementation, and is such a no-brainer than everyone
agrees we should Just Do It.<br>
<br>
So since your note was "all in one go", it's no surprise that people
seem to be saying yes AND no....<br>
<br>
Harald<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>