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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 20 June 2013 16:42 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 1136121F9DCA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PWlLDAmf+6VU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f49.google.com (mail-qe0-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F1721F9A58 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f49.google.com with SMTP id cz11so4093222qeb.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:42:13 -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=3D9smgLRhDdP2FK7u8+ioDhUoKU6j9UMMUuaC+kkiFU=; b=Y7sqxIZJM/lKsMqO4etshU5uWWsKK7hVaL9GphftqLQSWJ3Y7MWm8AkGV06mUHZfo1 vJZtlQwQz4XyPy/SKO8q1zHtA0DNDETrfPwLQr422tIjW92ueV+LdQ3FdAXW2yR6fKdO tl7wf8beKqhJn7sK2yChijI6Bms2WVUhv9gjSqjYJ7zjY9FiuIMYB99S1XSbmE+jPcz+ 20efKcnQ55E8UyGeXkI8zTUqecUjlQN/Hfu7jLGS5Aw1Ld/B16xFhl2g6cYv7kAFqJVB bd3PhtJ1zmIukZksiOb/o/9D4jdJFli+rMqChhMd0VVWheRJjylu+N1Z5sNhxWomEHnz uWQQ==
X-Received: by 10.224.177.201 with SMTP id bj9mr9911298qab.14.1371746533177; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.67.65 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D233F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D233F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:41:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfm4phxw9Dwg9wQ98GT0Zhx6JGf+xa_pAHn9+O-9KqxZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmmPXizAnavrZ8qNvtcLDjSIg7YTArdNZvXJUX7Q+iFqfq0PHH3bnOhHdcfxzKF+wSJu+/w
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 16:42:19 -0000

2013/6/20 Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>;:
> This has been debated many times in the working group and consensus in the past was to move forward with an SDP based API so evidence suggests that the majority of the working groups (IETF & W3C) believe it is possible to have a WebRTC 1.0 API which uses SDP.
>
> If we need to rigorously define an SDP profile for RTCWEB then that is what we should be doing rather like we do for RTP in the rtp-usage draft. In fact I think somebody started that work but there has been very little discussion in that direction.
>
> It seems to me we are making things more difficult than they need to be by trying to make complex extensions to SDP as part of WebRTC 1.0 which means we have a moving target with regards to SDP.
>
> If we keep things simple there is more chance of success.

Hi Andrew, please don't take me wrong but:

So the only arguments pro-SDP are "it was debated many times" (it
seems it does not matter than many people that agreed then have
changed their mind after getting experience), "let do something simple
for now based on SDP, something that allows a simple PSTN call" (so
SDP will be here forever and any future WebRTC app will have to deal
with SDP nightmares and will be subject to its O/A model, forever and
ever).

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