[rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0770821F8C98 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:48:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWZEcd-Vspde for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:48:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8452F21F8CD0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:48:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c13so1266281ieb.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:48:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=wHv0vUVL9D9PZUHkE4xq2itIQ4y5ZzjNnTvSoMSl1BI=; b=Y0IrcrBclvXfAeQnUQIVJcV8fTQsv53rCkk/Y2au2V0bRn0MctCvvboNaXw4hzPIkz X24anCDpbHkRv/Xblw/SzmLJMzXciydqPzplzsZIBbfm1xxu2wBTCvYzC9so0bKiHU83 XNcWmS6zUToSw54U9WC3KmRLv19mYhhYk2IGLZpF3VKfaQ6lgr4E/wPPNGHqYEjIU+6+ UR8q1rmWWHVtAVBsRZemgBocQidwoBsOKbq4bH0GnlnBGtVxvrE09JaV5kwsR+S3ZFmm iQORNrhBeM/o6ov4u+FR2KYy95i+PwmxJ4lPv638GUPgxA4cZ9K/824WwTr0S+MYLWjj WkYA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id al6mr16047714igc.20.1362696530080; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:48:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:48:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAtTOAw4hy5yRhdgW5=Ca9a9LjX9paZrR=+ABJGnJAU=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
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, 07 Mar 2013 22:48:51 -0000


For any working group to be able to make consistent progress, it must
be able to rely on decisions that have already been taken to remain
stable in the absence of new technical issues.    Re-raising old
issues without new information does not help move the work forward,
and, as tempting as it may be for those who raised it the initial
times, nor does a chorus of "I thought that all along".

For the specific question in the thread entitled "Proposed Plan for
Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP", I believe every
point in the thread has been raised before.  SDP has been unlovely and
arcane for many years, so this is not new news.  Despite that old
news, we have run consensus calls on this topic in both the IETF and
the W3C and agreed to use both it and offer/answer.

May I politely suggest we finish that work *before* we examine the
need and feasibility of an addtional, potentially lower-layer approach
to this?  Finishing the work before us does not close off all related
work for all time, but failure to produce something viable soon likely

I'm not sure what hat to wear for this message, so assume a "grumpy
old timer" porkpie, size 7 and 3/8ths.


Ted Hardie