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

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

What I am saying is that if we need a plan then no plan looks like the best option for WebRTC 1.0 and that we need to stop trying to boil the ocean and concentrate on what is needed to achieve the goals set out in the charter. It seems to me that we have got diverted from the original goals.

I don't believe this means that video is not adequately covered although it might mean a bit more implementation effort for those that want to get ahead of the game and build more complex applications but that is fair.

What is not fair is to reverse previous decisions because we are struggling to achieve things which are not even covered by the charter.

Regards
Andy




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 20 June 2013 18:17
> To: Peter Thatcher; Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP"
> debate to be re-opened .
> 
> Peter Thatcher said:
> 
> "Some of the more sophisticated features such as SSRC signaling and
> bundling could become part of WebRTC 2.0"
> 
> That's tantamount to saying Plan A vs. Plan B vs. NoPlan is part of
> WebRTC 2.0.  Is that what you're suggesting?
> 
> [BA] If the "Plan A" vs. "Plan B" issue is not resolved, then WebRTC
> v1.0 would really only cover audio scenarios adequately.   That might
> make sense if we believed that WebRTC API 2.0 would go in a different
> direction and be concluded quickly. However, I'd observe that just
> because something isn't specified in a standard doesn't mean it won't
> be widely implemented.   And once you have functionality widely
> implemented, you typically have to deal with backward compatibility -
> and when the thing to be backward compatible with isn't specified, then
> it's a bit of a headache.