Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 5350C21F9E3F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.715, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 SZQimfZpYhZ9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8146F21F9E3C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7ef76d000004bbc-9e-51dfb1a4bb6c
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 11.B0.19388.4A1BFD15; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:35:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.6]) by ESESSHC011.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.51]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:35:00 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
Thread-Index: AQHOflbnoSh5pMdyC0qq6yOZjrenEA==
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:35:00 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C311367@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+dyYmvsareEy1a9+7ketEFjNarsnRLXkpT_YHPTYni2w@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1135D31FD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CABkgnnU9r9OT+XW=Ewf=25yBJGCEZxCVnu_r1D=Eu=f9wrV4Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.146]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7SjfcDDdYvYrHomMxmce3MP0aL tf/a2R2YPab83sjqsXPWXXaPJUt+MgUwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlvHl3kb1gE1/F43+zWRoY 73F3MXJySAiYSHycNJkFwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBhRolbb1awQziLGCXurO5iA6liEwiU2Lpv AZgtIqArsejsA3YQm1kgSmLHph6mLkYODmEBPYk5DZEgpoiAvsTnzcYQ1XoS/Qc2MYPYLAKq Ej9n3AObwivgK9H0fxsTxKqFTBJ/3vUzgiQYgQ76fmoNE8R4cYlbT+YzQRwqILFkz3lmCFtU 4uXjf6wQtpLEjw2XWCDq9SRuTJ3CBmFrSyxb+JoZYpmgxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFp WcDIsoqRPTcxMye93HwTIzA6Dm75bbCDcdN9sUOM0hwsSuK8m/XOBAoJpCeWpGanphakFsUX leakFh9iZOLglGpglFLhD3R5xOUk5Do1capvmvjmjpKIp3NqurXdFF2fSB4WdxPvXsVruMuj 7P5st1Wvhd59atA1SWGdcTb5ro3ghZaPYWqNL4s3aat1Jv3knvd95peA7D0Hp3Ob+qftDp5+ rWb3uTMMvxu71h65yfAt3Vews5fRYvHE/Zu2forZ5JsTxPJacN15JZbijERDLeai4kQASc8E j1wCAAA=
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
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, 12 Jul 2013 07:35:12 -0000

On 7/11/13 9:38 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 11 July 2013 12:04, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
>>> In you last mail on the subject you mentioned that we will be
>>> discussing No Plan in Berlin together with plans A and B. Could
>>> we please add this to the agenda?
>>
>> No. We believe that conversation needs to happen in the W3C WebRTC
>> WG. I expect to see a message from W3C chairs on this at some
>> point.
>
> I'm a little nervous about this.  Where does the decision on the
> separation of responsibilities (API vs. SDP) get made?

(I have not been able to confer with any of the other chairs, so this is 
just my personal opinion):

To me it seems pretty straightforward to a certain point:

* The SDP (if we opt to continue using SDP for this purpose) that goes
on the signaling wire between the browsers is defined by IETF (and by
the rtcweb WG I presume even though MMUSIC seems to have some stake)

* JS APIs to:
** Apply an SDP (e.g. received on the signaling channel) to the browser
** Hand an SDP generated by the browser over to the application (for
transmission over the signaling wire presumably)
** Influencing/modifying the contents of the SDP
* All belongs to the W3C WebRTC

What seems unclear to me is where we define what modifications to the
SDP that are allowed - and when. Even though the ambition is to have
APIs that makes SDP mangling an exception, we will still see that
happening.

> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>