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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 19 June 2013 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 1084721F9E3B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 4QlDnzfsnRTH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F6E21F9E2F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z10so3149718qcx.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:32:17 -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:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=EnXmAGivngRjMtqM60jPELKlN6RgQ4knq8eh4UPD1BQ=; b=P+eBjYY/OMLpTUFSZnB0eyIgHdwxfUpYjNkswo84CQ56iN4rKLRI5H57AjXGj6u8UY JuBP+zXtH5t5DPz+3JtBXgXfExPFWRMmU7b8I7DlcfdZ4v8NgB4hrXXLtPHnigs81af9 z/DYsvxUYggdCWhdm+Hd7RkPxvsbQzAhloyWhJO4VvIYyWuQk/bOOul1aPU/ffHWzizV mfktk0Gofo63XTFfb0qX2rqvOlp+vuOPeNeP6+/cBU6iM17yRSMF27bXb3w/KRzqqS1H jszoDICs9kW4zR+bFEDREGxnK/nI/G88xgfS/l5sRDaeCWYMRC1EAK49Uc6hpA3+flre EYvg==
X-Received: by 10.229.25.5 with SMTP id x5mr1492231qcb.35.1371663137547; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.67.65 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUHojwYG7iykzP586H4KHnA9m4OymY+z6tZCTF+xPndP5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDk2L3SBPC08WU_5RcL16-Wzv8Mocj3-Qzmxz2E24ERGg@mail.gmail.com> <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUGqSvsosZJhcRR-kCwEX1g_wvPnSZPmmcNwggk+Z9WNCA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWfV=5xBaRqAddqUURThs9J4T4+0HK4Ux07VA51r5oC3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFNGKvWHw-yqeApEdTeuqMNPTDxvdKZ2DuzANmcR2y2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C1B907.8060508@hookflash.com> <CAJrXDUG06jvPvhfNwZ6Puzxj7E4XxELG_fU=S7B_c=tnC9eoNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnQ4uZVYv7kpHwpYu3SK4nmR4yWw1kxLppx-T71DMAOXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUHojwYG7iykzP586H4KHnA9m4OymY+z6tZCTF+xPndP5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:31:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkiA0-jY8gM++57qBTPTeys-YXUMZGTRgfyuhqTbFZ9zQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQncEcXdvv1Cb3JV31oYMWngJ20kwq6qkxO+roNG7nDmPu301LcFrP0//Dc2cDgDruX82hGy
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:32:20 -0000

Agreed with all you said, and thanks ;)

2013/6/19 Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>om>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
>>
>> 2013/6/19 Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
>>
>> >>
>> >> The summary of what I want/believe:
>> >> 1) I want as close to raw access to RTP/ICE streams, media, sources,
>> >> outputs, codecs as viable. Obviously doing the actual transmission,
>> >> encoding/decoding from JS is not feasible (yet), nor is secure [ICE must
>> >> occur for mutual agreement to exchange data between peers], but having
>> >> controls for how these components are wired together is extremely feasible
>> >> from JS and would allow immensely powerful apps to be produced from JS.
>> >
>> >
>> > What would you like to do that you can't do via SDP right now?  You said
>> > this isn't just about working through SDP.  But I don't see anything
>> > concrete you can't do right now with sufficient SDP
>> > parsing/building/munging/hackery.
>>
>>
>> If the "solution" with the current API/model is "SDP
>> parsing/building/munging/hackery" then let me strongly say that:
>>
>> *** I don't want SDP ***
>>
>> :)
>
>
> It may be helpful to respond to your original request to the WG chairs with
> something a little more clear, specific, concise, and actionable then your
> original email.  I know many people reading this thread will just think
> "what's this?  Oh, just more SDP ranting" and it will fall on deaf ears.
>
> Also, explaining your use case and specific pain points may be helpful.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The WG may dislike and reject your proposal
>>
>>
>> With all due respect,
>>
>> And which proposal will the WG accept then?
>
>
> I don't know.  Perhaps none of them.  It's possible we'll be stuck with SDP
> munging forever.
>
> But I think you'll maximize your chances of success by being clear with what
> you need, propose digestible solutions, avoid being ranty, and not try to
> blow it all up and start from scratch.  But I could be wrong.  Maybe there's
> a better way.
>
>
>>
>> It's frustrating IMHO that
>> we still have no pro-SDP arguments in this long thread and still must
>> accept that the SDP model would be the chosen one. Does the silence
>> strategy mean "SDP usage was already voted two years ago, ignore
>> current complains"? That could be a good argument if during the last
>> TWO years we had *something* really good and usable based on the SDP
>> model, but we don't have that. Instead we have tons of drafts and
>> alternatives to make SDP fulfil WebRTC requirements, and none of them
>> is good.
>>
>>
>> IMHO current complains are based on the *experience* of the people
>> trying to make the SDP model work in WebRTC, including people that
>> were in favour of SDP two years ago and now have changed their mind
>> (like me).
>
>
> It may help you to understand this from the other side's perspective.  Many
> people in the WG like SDP and want to use SDP for everything and don't want
> to change SDP much, if at all.   And when someone comes through ranting
> about SDP, they don't find that persuasive.
>
> If there's new information gained in the last two years that might be
> persuasive, present that.  But try to do it in clear, concise, way that says
> "here's what I'm trying to do", "here's my experience", "here's my pain",
> "here's how I think we can fix it".  That might be a lot more persuasive.
> Then again, it might now;  who knows? :)
>
>
>
>
>>> Anyone who argues that they need/want that simple SDP media negotiation
>>> API must understand that a lower level API would allow a wrapper API to
>>> produce the same WebRTC API the have today but be built entirely from
>>> JavaScript
>>
>>
>> That depends on how low-level you go.  If you go too low-level, it becomes
>> infeasible to do things correctly and performantly in JavaScript.
>
> There are tons of bug in current WebRTC implementations. Yes, there
> will be also bugs in future JS libraries dealing with WebRTC internals
> (those we propose), but they can be potentially fixed without
> requiring upgrading the browser, and without waiting for all the
> browser vendors to fix/implement them.
>
> And with all due respect, I don't agree at all with the "JavaScript
> performance issue" that worries you, but I think that it is not up to
> me to prove that a problem does not exist ;)
>
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>