[rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 June 2013 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B905521F9994 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.66
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zR3YZn8Vj60m for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A97D21F9980 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f11so2248128qae.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=w7+Ud8nmkePUYA6EACG+vNye3wdqauGX9f+yJD/nOfY=; b=SpvpK//DpUI3+8QCU8ajO10JVH8FMd9SipPXAh14+6jV4GwqNLJYmHfVvrR6Qam2s5 Pjzvyabjxbw5lYlaUQAKHGzCXJacdhggy5ek4X0SoKvzWmnEeQbZ9BfjhslfE7/1Su/s rxp9wLEfK75AzSlSIFQyhk1uiYK60U5n8GPgWfCvawDxj+d7ndywOAoekbwV/h20N5g5 VQyq6aViLdJc4cIvf0Log+6UOYdcrslSNfY/XhA/Hp4VWrJcelluOeP22RAQM/Yfe8M6 n20iC2Ee7drzyghz3Dyz0ris7YbykkFpPPTFPXNO+hcUzOo51pjoiXdoTIw+U6mwzFrS p5gg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f13mr23471823qay.16.1371573401657; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:36:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWJOp9qu1oo2WY5YK1t20KU4jAuAZzheBx3+PKyarBm5NiruVb8goULFDTaHKRA/TsoAYO
Subject: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:36:42 -0000

Hi all, I re-send this mail in a new thread.

Dear WG Chairs,

With all due respect, IMHO there is too much controversy about SDP
usage in WebRTC so I would like to request the WG to reopen the "SDP
or not SDP" debate.

I would also appreciate that those in favour of mandating SDP as the
core communication for WebRTC explain their rationale again (given the
number of arguments against SDP and the frustration SDP is causing),
and also that they give arguments and responses to all the SDP related
issues nicely summarized in this mail:


Thanks a lot.

Iñaki Baz Castillo