Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 93F6E21F8319 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 68uEMkC6K7Kz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8648121F9A4A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so4741826pbb.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=f0OVokcGGihE/YrgB4jA1+4u9trAYudAeX9lYkLvu5I=; b=hK8MfQCVF7stlXNZtrlcfXUFHSvQDBOpGSeGZPvz0wSj3tOww0wNxw4uWf2nTEWjtF o4zF+vz5tk6kv7+NNHgGzvEpL4f8+IVSCFI9LsqV8FW3jZf7AzT3e1nFycXdOdwGddAZ dygVcHGgOvQxQj4qUQ1r/BgdRO85MSC6Kh+2lFqXF6l+j/V1ENWxrHh33J3fv2Mqz8p7 LTw7MURsp48msPg3uy2atbeURzqSwwY76KrYIvvc7vqoQ+1a64VETwwYm9EpX2cAueDe OSGudEHpK9bh5q/QXu10lH2BiVSYTYxsqD7xpm2UxXOxetb2JK4oYYOe27ZIJpd9i+W8 NYIg==
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:x-gm-message-state; bh=f0OVokcGGihE/YrgB4jA1+4u9trAYudAeX9lYkLvu5I=; b=a/RLSwDQHjXsubR0OPV/Li4/tA5eVdztQe0jez4d3X3oRTVbbYGwYKAXJF6sxvizn5 fyzivDMu80BerbY9400zzVFVuqh2tOzUBdfD7wq+683ydgaSBEMRyh2wHPK2m26jSA9k MIiMhvYvtp76ekKRKzwf86NlV0DY+XhhXQ8KPNxz3cr0F+XRBk0AZWx4fKYq7lwhy7YH zMswKOl3IKrwUwfA+xdNaw9SFUFs2rsp5g1vIbAWlQNChd80DuSHde/WCKsk2T8TCin3 0HXqoOpy8SH/b/EZq59gTe3SFlVDNWjuPqFOa84UxQTs7kIC3VEgjsLhawCymzOJgnk2 X59g==
X-Received: by 10.68.219.130 with SMTP id po2mr18590442pbc.54.1374260248234; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.78.195 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51E97C86.2090808@nostrum.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30CD1E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU401-EAS386F88B3FE140492B39B59693610@phx.gbl> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484213E41E7@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C50FDAD5-492C-4A83-AD6D-464242FB4A05@iii.ca> <CALiegfneUj=kzDjR_E1=S-bqAajaPUE3f_A2g8oGriFyPhamPA@mail.gmail.com> <51E96B5B.2050302@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxsgSoRg=OcAKLWZpQNzseW5oSHimoa83LHXegZad4i=sA@mail.gmail.com> <51E978C2.8000002@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUFFQ-Xx5bJWEdH7JR6Ye9zrXKpieO+b=ea7-SD3LpfNWg@mail.gmail.com> <51E97C86.2090808@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:56:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE-yuq5CXNby=asabDint1tvHJ-yet=mbbe32R4qnsC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff24881eceb3804e1e1e532
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5O2h2x2kwPo5LS89PdBkUp+fMtWZ6TH6LYMIDtHZpMt70RxY/mCx/5LguZUSWd08XWTACrTXN6hkzB7nfk2RxCtkkBuGvYtr20K9aD68PNTtQ5mwRaPcgDzye0x1nraXjKqlPXH3BK+2JQGX+NO/ml9gh83yoKGdQS1Q+NbjyXmfbwbeF+7WOrXYG4l9DYMIqzdQB
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)
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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:57:35 -0000

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> On 7/19/13 12:39, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>>
>> So, are you trying to say "Look how hard this is to do with SDP.  We're
>> not even done yet.  It will be even harder without SDP"?
>>
>>
> No. I'm not saying it would be harder. I'm saying it wouldn't be easier,



It wouldn't be harder, and it wouldn't be easier.  So, it would be about
the same amount of work for either?



> and you would lose tangible benefits.


I still don't understand how this could be true.  If we define an API that
allows JS to use either SDP or not, at its choice, how is that a loss?  It
seems like only a gain.






> /a
>