Re: [rtcweb] division of responsibilities (was: Draft agenda for IETF 87)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 16:04 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 C67B411E80FE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.159
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-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 h3zN-Hh6jgQr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2482121F9A74 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c11so8173917wgh.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0S7snr5tTyCujx3f0Kq7OuAXK6R2xUenAoBamLBOgQg=; b=Kkd0RhkB8y54gvWUfazT1rh0U+5TrtZhmcWtrQGxlYcC+0lA9LPssZyL3jLgcgbIE5 hOQNp3NDUR8XeMh7V7d1dkPDaCGxhFAnmZZy+GHfdCG1HybVDl1fE7NZEyXwNGmQlExu c+v3EY8gOZNzytn9EoI7tuCWaW041l30Xm2ECRP90W5/0VCqVm3wyrcovhOGL5vi3d0O K6q4HDCJHup3UWX9a6TRlJW8AE27FPo26T5h9RhfwL/Pq7r6h9UwM3RU0uSnf9DmKtO6 AadwmWLfiGeU0BQkLuEQguTDBQpilkXAFdEhxWe8NZ9ZoZuENMh2Zgbb4nX4Xs8WRV6n n1gw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.78.110 with SMTP id a14mr24680261wjx.84.1373645098288; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUBdarwAoz=41_Nz1WSdYJ8gXUjxkggwFomHiC-efiN_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_H=C3=A5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] division of responsibilities (was: 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 16:04:59 -0000

On 12 July 2013 00:35, Stefan Håkansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 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.

I can see how you would reach that conclusion, but it's only simple at
the most superficial level.

There needs to be a clear understanding about what information is
carried in SDP and what information is supplied by the application.  I
have observed that there is an assumption implicit in a lot of the
work that says that SDP carries everything it can possibly carry.
I'll note that this has been implicit, never explicit.  And the mere
existence of no-plan highlights the fact that there is a fundamental
disagreement on this point.

We've been building a consensus that is based on an assumption.  I'd
rather we had consensus than an untested assumption.  With all respect
to the chairs, that's not something I trust them to rule on at this
point.