
Hi, Regarding the question that Wes raises below: I think that we all want to work with RTP itself. Actually it was me who started with that all-over-SCTP idea, and I did that in thinking that the scope would be for rtcweb and nothing but rtcweb. I now understand that the scope can be broader than that, and would like to see it broader, just like pretty much everyone else, it seems to me. Because of that, I would like to undo my all-over-SCTP proposal back. I think it's a bad idea because it limits everything we do to the rtcweb scope alone. I believe that we probably have consensus about that. Does anyone disagree? Cheers, Michael On Jun 26, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
The RMCAT BoF was approved to meet at IETF 84 in Vancouver.
BoF chairs will be announced soon.
When it was discussed by the IESG and IAB, one topic that really needs to be clarified by/within the group is the scope of the mechanisms being developed. For instance, it needs to be more clear what stack the group wants to be chartered to operate on. Whether the group would be doing a mechanism that works for RTP itself, or a new SCTP mechanism will need to be very clear.
-- Wes Eddy MTI Systems _______________________________________________ Rtp-congestion mailing list Rtp-congestion@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion