IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 19 October 2012 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 C83C321F8689 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bb4lO559fJDU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299E721F8584 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2249D39E106; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:26:40 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IFn7MX8Dl0MP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:26:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.130.0.147] (4.234.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [83.241.234.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 710E139E020; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:26:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <50811CCE.3070707@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:26:38 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
References: <201210181817.q9IIH3Vm4836109@shell01.TheWorld.com> <50804BFA.2030700@alvestrand.no>, <CALiegfnc0NCgB_D_Poh-d5abGX7fRWgqquFg3dAbK79S6j65iA@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484160EEF0F@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484160EEF0F@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Relaxing SDP O/A (was RE: Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting)
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 Oct 2012 09:26:42 -0000

On 10/18/2012 09:08 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> I think this interpretation is correct... which of course leads to the same question I asked on one of the last W3C calls on the subject: *IF* we are going to be producing an API which does not in fact comply with RFC 3264, but in fact significantly relaxes the rules of SDP O/A (which this email thread has confirmed is the case, as I suspected it would), then why are we so hung up on producing an API which looks anything like it (as opposed to, say, the proposal I jointly made with others here at Microsoft)?
Because making an interface that makes following an existing practice 
easy (but does not enforce all the constraints of that practice) is 
better than making an interface that makes following that practice very 
complex?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email