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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 06:50 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 E4D9621F9D64 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=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 2-741LrQoQtb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84AFB21F9A35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x11so4741062pdj.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:49:50 -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=Xe+QTvLDEbPGYhzar8F/PkZsf58T1WqmCJ/rghPuZuM=; b=ZhvTdH6v990U+AGlRyQ32MElu4IKWyArELlCinWDHPKtJriI302m3ataGDpHTM6ETr Eagu7QKDuwKim94M0yg6SrlQuw5ilcasMoVlBlRV1piTHzw+jVJelX0oPldfqmg+Xzu4 yz2nILKHWhFQ2WnHzRbsqzP76RJcU2nfWRYm0AVP7B6XY1g6DaIvYNOns1b9wBKgk5ll QVh5lLnM2nwJF7kWfz3xujbwY/wlvQfqq8wDYVvDRXbdcYjeODyxQobQ431mRrcpxQEc 8ZMJU5d8AdPyVD+m9LKMsuVlghXVknzOfTJ90YDQ5Mt5icwFoO6GEVGrFZohnJGtLHd/ p+Jw==
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=Xe+QTvLDEbPGYhzar8F/PkZsf58T1WqmCJ/rghPuZuM=; b=GRfErL/F+QJzAP1gCw2dz58lj/spyTpmaBJ//JVuBz8ofU4BX08bP6TKo+NjggjrsT W1vpXj/UtM9IuEm830AUsM79vLYgTGhzknmFglbdxzh7A17xiltYH7Q85VDxoyuzikiZ fZz9QSlcNDGYjifW3DgY9R0Q166eZpIgRppRkfZMOpJfYtlTymK4wEYIbYbmAHuaLV6d q4rXWMMJsPawX++WkbPZ11IwB5jGbSih/SuOKDp/I4OsSQtIGpL6xvd2f96bxroRpyjm /IuLy8EjO2uw0j+BiY9k5f84HZw6YDSmNlJd95rS5QNob0xiRxKdNnxH5ONFjeirnEzP k7aQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.240.70 with SMTP id vy6mr5482617pac.70.1371624590104; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:49:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15aba9757faa04df7c3c14
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlm3uWZ2SuvrLLNn9QtZSYAawn2PZtjLYjjuLaSAPzfaOvGnCRV75r5YypRnBK1xGwZ6/m7tk39pTwLvhgAJfW+8o9Ag+HrDa15IoQNCLaBV1zRrlqdllwnhpwH1lA4HtN09AGjU/RaKdhCkMDi4bOthUL4IWMFZLvLhE6yeZVLaIq5DcFdqP4nzHyrlz52SoONAPU/
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 06:50:03 -0000

Correct my if I'm wrong, but the API already leaves what goes over the wire
completely up to the JS app.  So we couldn't re-open a debate of "SDP or
not SDP" for the wire format, because there's nothing to debate.  We
already decided it would be left to the JS to decide.  The only thing left
to debate is the API.

Or am I wrong?



On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> We need to be very clear what we talk about, or some people are always
> going to be confused :)
>
> So, AFAIK, the discussion is about SDP O/A usage in the API, only in the
> API, and nowhere but the API.
>
> Whatever people us on the wire is outside the scope.
>
> Right?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> Sent from *Windows* using *TouchDown* (www.nitrodesk.com)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Peter Thatcher [pthatcher@google.com]
> *To:* Martin Thomson [martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> *CC:* rtcweb@ietf.org [rtcweb@ietf.org]
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
> Martin, you're right; that was overly harsh of me.  Adam, I apologize.
>  I'll be civil in the future.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> I agree with Peter, except for this bit:
>>
>> On 18 June 2013 15:16, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
>> > Adam, I think you're confused.
>>
>>  Adam is much harder to confuse than you think, or than he professes.
>>
>> Speaking of burning it all down and starting over.  If you want a
>> house-related analogy, that's not quite correct.  It's refusing to
>> build an extension because the old house, while legally fit for
>> habitation, is falling down around your ears.  Since you only need
>> foundations, it's not that big a job (though I'll grant you that it's
>> bigger than many people realize, even with that smaller scope).
>>
>
>