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

Christer Holmberg <> Wed, 19 June 2013 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F21A21F9F61 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.764
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.764 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5zJKOYgGUP24 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73D521F9F51 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f5d6d000003d54-7c-51c156da219a
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DF.60.15700.AD651C15; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:59:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:59:37 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Peter Thatcher <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:59:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE7CFESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6tsIOBBrsvK1tcO/OP0eLa8tes Fmv/tbM7MHvsnHWX3WPBplKPJUt+MgUwR3HbJCWWlAVnpufp2yVwZzTcf8VUsMSxYtXTw4wN jB0WXYycHBICJhItryczQ9hiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4zChx78ElRghnEaPE7HWPgTIcHGwCFhLd /7RBGkQENCUmT25mBbGZBYIklp0/wgRiCwt4SHQuvMgMUi4i4Cmx/GwVRHmSxM4LSxhBbBYB VYn13b9YQUp4BXwlLj7khtg0jUVi3qLNYGM4BQIl9m36zQ5iMwLd9v3UGiaIVeISt57MZ4K4 WUBiyZ7zUPeLSrx8/A9sJrNAvsS5Y4IgYV4BQYmTM5+wTGAUmYWkexZC1SwkVRAlOhILdn9i g7C1JZYtfM0MY5858JgJWXwBI/sqRvbcxMyc9HLDTYzASDq45bfuDsZT50QOMUpzsCiJ8344 tStQSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTByeI4JJqYLTfLuO00PS1Mu+vVxJr3qvz8q83PmzR HHSsYcJSFg8FBZXj7TdWTS25llpe8/PEzyb5vw8fTf9SFLdtrZDMNL3VAg8Ohe6d1vCVy/pd 4wGp0zUBV5ieNC80qFnKbqr0tXXOuWovpvvMa17GmccfviKtVL8w6reqH9u+Dg7J27W9Tk2O dXJTRZVYijMSDbWYi4oTASGs78V3AgAA
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:59:45 -0000


I have the same understanding as you. But, just to make sure everyone know what is discussed :)



Sent from Windows using TouchDown (

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Thatcher []
To: Christer Holmberg []
CC: Martin Thomson []; []
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
Correct my if I'm wrong, but the API already leaves what goes over the wire completely up to the JS app.  So we couldn't re-open a debate of "SDP or not SDP" for the wire format, because there's nothing to debate.  We already decided it would be left to the JS to decide.  The only thing left to debate is the API.

Or am I wrong?

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Christer Holmberg <<>> wrote:

We need to be very clear what we talk about, or some people are always going to be confused :)

So, AFAIK, the discussion is about SDP O/A usage in the API, only in the API, and nowhere but the API.

Whatever people us on the wire is outside the scope.




Sent from Windows using TouchDown (<>)

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Thatcher [<>]
To: Martin Thomson [<>]
CC:<> [<>]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
Martin, you're right; that was overly harsh of me.  Adam, I apologize.  I'll be civil in the future.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Martin Thomson <<>> wrote:
I agree with Peter, except for this bit:

On 18 June 2013 15:16, Peter Thatcher <<>> wrote:
> Adam, I think you're confused.

Adam is much harder to confuse than you think, or than he professes.

Speaking of burning it all down and starting over.  If you want a
house-related analogy, that's not quite correct.  It's refusing to
build an extension because the old house, while legally fit for
habitation, is falling down around your ears.  Since you only need
foundations, it's not that big a job (though I'll grant you that it's
bigger than many people realize, even with that smaller scope).