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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 73E8B21F9928 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 3v+75ZFLZevq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802A221F9D9B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 215A61EB8565 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:25:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.174]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:25:37 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .
Thread-Index: AQHObEJByY7ZqkO+CkSPIPqSfmn6rpk+jpkg
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:25:37 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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 15:26:31 -0000

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