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

"Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Thu, 20 June 2013 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 4F45321F9CB2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 o1sneDfDOqRv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0208.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C8C21F9C9A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD011.protection.gbl (10.173.161.202) by BL2FFO11HUB026.protection.gbl (10.173.161.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.707.0; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:57:42 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD011.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.707.0 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:57:41 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.171]) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:57:21 +0000
From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .
Thread-Index: AQHObcqPDuRfQhlNY0SczjQsZweh2pk+vz8AgAACnV0=
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:57:20 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2DAE97@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>, <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2DAE97TK5EX14MBXC273r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454003)(199002)(189002)(74706001)(66066001)(80022001)(69226001)(65816001)(56816003)(56776001)(31966008)(74876001)(63696002)(20776003)(59766001)(55846006)(74662001)(53806001)(44976003)(46102001)(76796001)(74366001)(33656001)(49866001)(50986001)(54356001)(16406001)(79102001)(6806003)(47976001)(16236675002)(74502001)(54316002)(71186001)(76482001)(512934002)(81342001)(47446002)(77982001)(47736001)(81542001)(76786001)(51856001)(4396001)(77096001)(132733001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB026; H:TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 08831F51DC
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:57:50 -0000

It must be possible for a third party to implement a compatible browser without referring to anything but the chain of normative references. At the present time, this is not the case, and would be grounds for not ratifying the specification within W3C.

Matthew Kaufman

________________________________
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Roman Shpount [roman@telurix.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:47 AM
To: Hutton, Andrew
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .

My question is, would this WebRTC 1.0 API ever become a standard without SDP portion of it being well defined?