Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 08 March 2013 19:51 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7C321F8945 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:51:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ykgOXtk-g8S1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A002621F8923 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id m4so1622618lbo.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:51:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QhZKJIYPDgFH8iyVHwNhGDAQydHTHadVrw9fLVHkiEM=; b=PySfomlUD3zsk49qpiSeddQ8XnPgW7X6NP6Z11XEgsFy2JBFXd9IERK1gMMGwzyPy2 JQRRV0/Ox0Ilu2p8Tim4vw9mPNEkAr3pMZmFk0mRD9CmOQTDvR7QDXdOxDuJajIeMG7N x0+153nevzYLkgAwtjXDZQc/IFqSQm22yxeuWsW/fs2aIPtQzasbpN/0QtCtL5OKUYMF Z6ktWvp3tCMwNZ05WrtdeJFkoB7+R72r7S2XrQ2cv068chW2EbIvavTfLpv7KEZzL8/K lxLgcOH+mjApieeoDCi59h54Nsap7CUg4K0LJf254m4lNEJQyWtXTLxnVYyBN1XRXVRH xakQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.146.199 with SMTP id te7mr3043333lab.23.1362772277509; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:51:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.56.37 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:51:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281026B8A@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAtTOAw4hy5yRhdgW5=Ca9a9LjX9paZrR=+ABJGnJAU=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN75PncyA1euiZ-9rr=parAGnM43oAL0JQHykxnJ+3YWww@mail.gmail.com> <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281026A26@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com> <CAADs5MoWo6Nd+S7ndLDn784hTtCBxzu-kR0=9PkwJRQFZ5bp7Q@mail.gmail.com> <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281026B8A@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:51:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXUEC+ABh8eeNQF+FeYSjcoUcK0YCT1nv0Y6DtHJkbUJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f22c55582c59204d76f258d"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
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: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:51:19 -0000
On 8 March 2013 11:33, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote: > My understanding is that SDP is an API surface _*only*_. So, yes, the > application developer can send whatever he wants over the wire. (I > imagine that a lot of implementations, including ours, will send the SDP to > the other side, but it’s not required.)**** > > Even if this were the case, there are two important problems: - two browsers made by different vendors need to be able to produce and consume SDP with predictable results. - applications that do slice and dice need to be able to receive predictable inputs and be able to produce outputs that are consumed by the APIs in a predictable fashion. Robin is right: applications will do this because they have to. Less important is the ability to take the product of a browser and send that to a legacy endpoint, or do the same in the opposite direction. > I tend to agree with a previous poster who suggests that we separate > problems with the offer/answer state machine from problems with the SDP API > surface. We could keep the state machine but change the API surface, or > change the API language and keep the state machine. > > ** > Both are problems, but yes, they are separable. Many things are almost infinitely separable, but where separation can increase clarity, it can also mask issues. Caution advised.
- [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB (U… Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Martin Thomson