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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 16:28 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 3853B21F9DEA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:28:52 -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 N2uSw8+qYO89 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:28:48 -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 87C6821F9E38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 6ACA41EB83F1; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:28:40 +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 18:28:40 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .
Thread-Index: AQHObEJByY7ZqkO+CkSPIPqSfmn6rpk+jpkggAASMACAACdKMA==
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:28:40 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D233F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 16:28:52 -0000

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.

Regards
Andy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Shpount [mailto:roman@telurix.com]
> Sent: 20 June 2013 16:47
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP"
> debate to be re-opened .
> 
> My question is, would this WebRTC 1.0 API ever become a standard
> without SDP portion of it being well defined? Right not this is an
> opaque blob with little or no definition attached to it. It can be
> modified and extended in non-compatible way by an implementer with no
> changes to the actual external API surface. I do not think we are
> anywhere near the working API unless we specify exactly what SDP can be
> generated WebRTC compliant browser and what is an SDP acceptable to
> WebRTC compliant browser and lock it down. Ideally it should be defined
> in a way that can be extended in the future (ie forcing only certain
> features to be used via some sort of version based initialization).
> 
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
> 
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Hutton, Andrew
> <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>; wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb