IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 E3A5521F9E88 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 7XcKpVFLJt+C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22f.google.com (mail-oa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84ABA21F9E59 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m1so8395904oag.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=30wBvqcpVFF0wpFmskMgUUOlroWzP9m4psG0FuBgPoM=; b=XO7twAMT+HO7Ehiw2m93SiOXoIU16W9DjtilFgpHDFnTWeUJgsC6+W0zrSkskIRJMM xe0uGhEWgnKnlN6WZVxxStCIEUQmAThuAOZiw/LMSWPTWMdgTtVrDMSZvfxbyMYp9EYg 2WVHcjSlyOyHYtwe2nCMy8LtQYrnaotvS16u4FQS02rBCfTQDqcTmcSckymOqzzomHhV buv272ciMFDhwAGaufQwzl1P540ytYQ8YW1X+3WtQlpmTxeSaPWvjYz+Sj8JcXzjmjgJ j1Qs7eK2anhbNKm9X4T3i7f2JkQh0biSM95r8g7b70qQAqhuyC7k4SgWNamiK6gGqwcT hgNA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.60.2 with SMTP id d2mr1974686obr.75.1371749286686; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.26.135 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.1.51.101]
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2DAE97@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2DAE97@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:28:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgT5JxfVhgcR0OQ7az_08oMBrKNP=gLEzJoQ0ecJFQMDwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e015387dcf447c104df9944a5"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmk4HMptNDnJ21yCFK3nUPbLXEZDij7zlFEKGSabu7QZJ9ByR2ayGnfSqnjuGI4Hha8dqzu
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:28:21 -0000

Perhaps you could specify which references are missing?


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

>  It must be possible for a third party to implement a compatible browser
> without referring to anything but the chain of normative references. At the
> present time, this is not the case, and would be grounds for not ratifying
> the specification within W3C.
>
>  Matthew Kaufman
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of
> Roman Shpount [roman@telurix.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:47 AM
> *To:* Hutton, Andrew
> *Cc:* rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP"
> debate to be re-opened .
>
>  My question is, would this WebRTC 1.0 API ever become a standard without
> SDP portion of it being well defined?
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email