Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87

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
>