Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hardiel,

As we all low to discuss and nitpick each other arguments I do have a
comment on some of your points.

On 2011-09-16 20:29, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> 
> But email's free... so for the sake of posterity (and email
> archiving) here're some reasons not to use SDP anyway:
> 1) Incorporating SDP and the offer/answer model into the Browser and
> W3C API inexorably ties the W3C to the IETF MMUSIC working group for
> all time. So far, I had been going on the assumption the IETF would
> be defining what the RTP library had to do/expose, while W3C would 
> define the API. But if the API includes SDP offer/answer, that 
> portion is the IETF's domain too, afaik. Anything the W3C wants to do
> in the future for that has to go through the IETF, not just IANA. 
> (right?)

Depends on what parts of SDP you want to extend. And in fact most things
can be done with not having to write an RFC.

SDP attributes (a=) has the registration policy of Specification
Required which means W3C can do what they want themselves an then ask
IANA for registration.

The Proto needs an RFC, but it can be RFC-editor or Informational.
However, as new proto is a new transport, I do expect some IETF
involvement anyway to make sure it works with the existing ones.

I guess these are the two most important. And I am not going to discuss
all of them, especially as some extensions may more properly belong in
other parts of IETF than MMUSIC. For the ones interested in IANA rules
for SDP, go look at section 8 in RFC4566.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------