Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability

Anant Narayanan <> Wed, 08 August 2012 00:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7899211E80FA for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l7rhpscKsYzd for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB5A11E80F2 for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DF69F21F6; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:43:02 -0700
From: Anant Narayanan <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:43:01 -0000

On 8/7/12 2:57 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
> Ok, the timing is unfortunate, but can you honestly say that we didn't know that this was skype/microsofts opinion? We just chose to ignore it because it was inconvenient.
> Now that it is out there, are we seriously going to ignore a document with _those_ authors from a major browser maker and a team with extensive experience in the field jus because it is late!?!?

I absolutely don't want to discount the extensive collective experience 
and knowledge of how RTC works that went behind the document - but I 
have a hard time treating this proposal as coming from a major browser 
vendor. A proposal from the team behind Skype or Lync is different from 
a proposal that comes from the IE team.

In particular, I strongly disagree with the statement that the existing 
proposal does not honor "key web tenets". As ekr wrote in his analysis, 
the web has moved away from a completely stateless model for a while 
now. In fact, PeerConnection is already more low-level than I would have 
preferred, especially when compared to the original proposal from Ian 

I don't fully grasp how the significantly more complex Javascript API 
proposed in the document is actually beneficial to the modern web as a