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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 7009721F9C02 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:56 -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, 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 RPlWicejO5m6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F1721F8476 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q56so4810875wes.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ir3QprhUMkQJfMSKoSje/OyEEnDGRy39yH0T1Jdg2kQ=; b=bHB1GKzENHMNwXfLVTrLo7lFKpzq8Q+4s7bokDf1v0LjasrlACm6SHBXfgAoS6eFaP J8JSro4Yh0+/AUyRledNWJb3dSev7CJ+PkwQ83XIpQ+UZD929t2CghdIzbP3K7PpzPA0 cjlS7Fm3zTtJNXy60pRIbQGaZKYAXPdUTaNOXmv4Pp9VTzh+M2wXPPPTXbDbxJNChMgW kIH01WiRnJ1NITEJ1ukgkTSbM5pcxRLFKNwoSSdkuOuZrZ2gAVOs5LQp5ms9o9GdoUTE 5q6V79upK2NEth2Nhd7CaRsADhjevFwPtasnxHk+Ax9A4qwbphpbTrRpzQB2WNnhxCix 2Obw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.216.41 with SMTP id on9mr3604647wjc.3.1371672950008; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C20FAA.4050701@hookflash.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDk2L3SBPC08WU_5RcL16-Wzv8Mocj3-Qzmxz2E24ERGg@mail.gmail.com> <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUGqSvsosZJhcRR-kCwEX1g_wvPnSZPmmcNwggk+Z9WNCA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWfV=5xBaRqAddqUURThs9J4T4+0HK4Ux07VA51r5oC3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFNGKvWHw-yqeApEdTeuqMNPTDxvdKZ2DuzANmcR2y2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C1B907.8060508@hookflash.com> <CAJrXDUG06jvPvhfNwZ6Puzxj7E4XxELG_fU=S7B_c=tnC9eoNQ@mail.gmail.com> <78192824-A516-4376-8D4F-3B052ED47A0C@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUGOYc_Z_qWD7J0ZzVdfwYOacH_p5PjZEg5aP1LUetffMA@mail.gmail.com> <51C1F2E9.20405@hookflash.com> <51C1F5ED.9090308@matthew.at> <51C20FAA.4050701@hookflash.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:15:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWw9anT+h_hnF14nBChS73qpTb31hSM=p2KnGrcRPGRJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419e92eef1e804df877ef5
Cc: "rtcweb_ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:15:56 -0000

On 19 June 2013 13:08, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:

> One thing that is missing for CU-RTCWeb is the JavaScript shim that proves
> that the SDP / SIP folks can produce a reasonable implementation for the
> simple API they do need to interface with SIP/SDP based devices and
> infrastructure. I know it shouldn't be Skype job to produce that shim but I
> don't think anyone will adopt anything unless it's demonstrably easy for
> the SIP world (unless I misunderstand their objections).


We sketched out some designs for this that indicated that it is at least
feasible.  It's not that easy though - prancer in particular complicates
things considerably - and we managed to find more important things to spend
time on before we could do anything significant.  Full compliance with the
specification, rather than just an SDP implementation, is not something
that is easily replicated.