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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 4DD3721F9DE9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Jvasvzp0gUuV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FEB21F9DE8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ey16so1847981wid.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=vbVB/WNYIY4cZvV5cP/gRo+9UNWspe6HCYjRUfB0NE4=; b=asSuLAQmOJ85E10Bhy5yWYtxtQHmsjeAmDts+M4NnjFjHlcN4p80l/ua9X9+Am2AfA 0VMwmtH2YyC+01sYyucoCOLBCD70DxnOKNouXlhrjE9OsUxJN2wriv5zh5+rFi1Sku7/ Yg2ivXV5sUAAcVCnLQ6wRdxBbdHY9DUUr6Ivfxowi3iXLcmW36Nf09fAF0lTAjWChnWP DP4jiIPaIXtejCoHVtfPXuqSIzrnFmz9qfoLLMTiX9rcxd9cJSkHCIKQalB2M9UsVxW4 JgENW+EJApRGM05rpyr04EnZeZNn3HdjfwkPb2mivspCXynljN8biBoXhHq1QqmUY2TS oEBw==
X-Received: by 10.180.185.133 with SMTP id fc5mr41633wic.8.1371743228242; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u9sm1336741wif.6.2013.06.20.08.47.07 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x54so5551722wes.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.195.12.133 with SMTP id eq5mr6183089wjd.27.1371743226652; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:47:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04c90bf6c6504df97dbc9
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6YraCiRSCH3WMZ/MMoKvyWt1bnaO8MNfWyhCpg/zE45yqElSnhPvpGdVoAEoRHqXcB4V8
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 15:47:10 -0000

My question is, would this WebRTC 1.0 API ever become a standard without
SDP portion of it being well defined? Right not this is an opaque blob with
little or no definition attached to it. It can be modified and extended in
non-compatible way by an implementer with no changes to the actual external
API surface. I do not think we are anywhere near the working API unless we
specify exactly what SDP can be generated WebRTC compliant browser and what
is an SDP acceptable to WebRTC compliant browser and lock it down. Ideally
it should be defined in a way that can be extended in the future (ie
forcing only certain features to be used via some sort of version based
initialization).
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Hutton, Andrew <
andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>; wrote:

>
> IMHO the re-opening of the debate on "SDP or not SDP" is not the right
> approach to making progress at this moment in time as it would only serve
> to slow the process even further and reopen all the old arguments.
>
> The agreement albeit a W3C agreement was to assess the requirements for a
> lower level API (Without SDP) once a first release of WebRTC is achieved
> and I think we should not reverse that agreement there was strong consensus
> on that at the time.
>
> However I think we should have a close look at our priorities and what we
> really need to get to what would effectively be WebRTC 1.0. My feeling is
> that we are trying to do too much.
>
> Let's take a short pause for breath and think about what we really need
> for a successful WebRTC 1.0 as I think we are maybe focused on the wrong
> issues and we seem to have got diverted from the priorities set in the
> charter (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charter/).
>
> For example to make even basic WebRTC applications easily deployable we
> need to resolve the firewall issues as stated in the charter (bullet 3). We
> don't even have an adopted draft for that yet but I hope that can be
> changed very soon.  If WebRTC apps work from my home but not when I check
> in to a hotel or go to my office then we really have a problem even with
> the most basic audio only apps.
>
> In conclusion, let's focus on the requirements specified in the charter,
> concentrate on more basic issues relating to security and deployment that
> really need to be solved now. Some of the more sophisticated features such
> as SSRC signaling and bundling could become part of WebRTC 2.0.
>
> Let's make WebRTC 1.0 successful as soon as possible.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> > Sent: 18 June 2013 17:36
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
> >
> > Hi all, I re-send this mail in a new thread.
> >
> >
> > Dear WG Chairs,
> >
> > With all due respect, IMHO there is too much controversy about SDP
> > usage in WebRTC so I would like to request the WG to reopen the "SDP
> > or not SDP" debate.
> >
> > I would also appreciate that those in favour of mandating SDP as the
> > core communication for WebRTC explain their rationale again (given the
> > number of arguments against SDP and the frustration SDP is causing),
> > and also that they give arguments and responses to all the SDP related
> > issues nicely summarized in this mail:
> >
> >   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07873.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Iñaki Baz Castillo
> > <ibc@aliax.net>;
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>