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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 E968E21E80C8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 j1VuWeKhqIV6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D084221F998F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 10so4363414pdc.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kFRX8cdZVj1HUFwEJ0quvzGsGuo1YPlpZBnNRFOduxg=; b=BcO/fMJHxI/6OZ4/HDIxhsgB7KN32LVgKko5VwLTtFcRco8LMR26fovDfYLJIkcS1z kZwgX+7vFcOv54RYW8vdfZS6IdvIgHA6mTXoIahd55iaZW+hcDZOM43jvJUyoQohY9jl 2d3SGt3LF2IHPaj9rOhOmhJxq7BvWf17LmeLvLxibn015sKwW0hRhW7WpYWghGNQhBWZ ZIWbkgDCekGvvp630j9phaH71xbGVh+Qs+bI5/nPrCFYcPoESm9LEotFyWQeqTXtl/I9 FVTEZxIVxkWXildBqZRCGlFp93WKkBBUGzOQ74Jkp73+KBVDe+Y5I9uWgkQP6+AAud5r QK2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=kFRX8cdZVj1HUFwEJ0quvzGsGuo1YPlpZBnNRFOduxg=; b=FXsiTTYT0E3gPfB8NgeZQRzOIy7K1mqLJG4YYLW6j5wypgRhb7cO40ZqaZLK18dNgr v//oXSDlcI5TucwEcY3aw/o2U40MCB1WQ4KlFWWFhR6S+BA0cEF2eaA72taEDecKtIcj entlE0AZWDxkMKe7jmuLsMM7EfEaVXHs/JpziYFX/ZFp3v2kh8j1NWiHnVzJkQ7z1/li /zPPLbZvm9z00iIrhbSq1L0VDVshqFsawQ3qB7eJvALsTwsrcPcstzEBzmbiMivDpd2U cUWEfC0g6jPFzfxrisCcTtBG5PvFs+nWoKrm/qVWvy2d6hd8x56FcPoa7L1TesBBFjPy iaLw==
X-Received: by 10.66.163.73 with SMTP id yg9mr2560912pab.77.1371593809508; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDk2L3SBPC08WU_5RcL16-Wzv8Mocj3-Qzmxz2E24ERGg@mail.gmail.com> <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:16:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGqSvsosZJhcRR-kCwEX1g_wvPnSZPmmcNwggk+Z9WNCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86f75ecae1d304df7511bf
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnyqa72FzVs6RvVOJRrybTcid2Y8i6eCeZ5knf/mFHNebKyAwIAgrxbJyC5VcRkjmsEVaT02Mi7v3IutYMJ59JTk96xBOLh/qMG+tCv2AEpbCiqXiz/hQAQFmlle9nebtBMHwjgZz3k/44G9G1K5LjwWrw8o8J77Uxo7IGsuz/FeyGIaTh89LGOct5Z5RIMSHI8guI9
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:16:54 -0000

Adam, I think you're confused.  As Ted pointed out, there are two different
uses of SDP: 1.  as a control surface, 2. as a message format for
signalling.  SDPNG was trying to replace SDP for #2.  While I believe this
thread was started entirely focused on #1.  So you're talking about
different things.

So far the only time spent on trying to replace or avoid SDP for #1 has
been "comment 22", and to a lesser extent the proposal I just made for
adding 2 methods to PeerConnection (createLocalStream and
createRemoteStream).   I think it's incorrect to conclude that we should
never try to improve #1 just because other in the past failed to replace
#2.  They're very different.

I also don't think we should burn down WebRTC and start over, but despite
what some seem to think, we don't have to choose between "burn it down" and
"never improve it".  There are many options other than the two extremes.



By the way, a gentle reminder: SDP is not the only way to do #2.  I work on
a rather large system almost entirely build around Jingle, without a hint
of SDP, and it works just fine.  Much better than SDP would have, I think.
 Just because SDPNG didn't work out doesn't mean there will never be any
way other to do signalling than SDP.



On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> On 6/18/13 15:15, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> Creating something new that accomplishes that and is substantially better
>> than SDP seems like a long task to me.
>>
>
> Many men have died on that hill. I'm still sad about the colossal time and
> talent sink represented by these 61 pages:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/**draft-ietf-mmusic-sdpng-08.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdpng-08.txt>
>
> I have no reason to think that burning WebRTC down the the ground and
> starting over would produce a different result. If anything, the issues are
> more contentious now than they were in 2005.
>
> /a
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>