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

"Jim Barnett" <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.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 8DE8021F8678 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:59:58 -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]
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 qgG5Rq51rh9K for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com (relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com [198.49.180.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC0A21F8652 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g2.genesyslab.com (g2.genesyslab.com [192.168.20.138]) by relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q77CxsW7009257; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com ([192.168.20.93]) by g2.genesyslab.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:59:55 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:59:20 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81068E10E2@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
In-Reply-To: <pm9g3f539oh0iyg0y0j4elbn.1344273079260@email.android.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
Thread-Index: Ac10bi8MrjY6CIctQbCrFa0VuQiHdAALEEGw
References: <pm9g3f539oh0iyg0y0j4elbn.1344273079260@email.android.com>
From: "Jim Barnett" <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
To: "Alexey Aylarov" <alexey@zingaya.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2012 12:59:55.0389 (UTC) FILETIME=[8AAC72D0:01CD749C]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:59:58 -0000

It seems to me that this proposal is a continuation of a discussion that
the group has been having for a while over how much to bake into the
browser.  JSEP leaves more to the application than ROAP did, and now
this proposal suggests moving even more into the application.  It seems
to me that the trade-off is clear, and doesn't  involve "openness": the
less we bake into the browser, the more flexibility the app developer
has, and the more work he has to do.  (To link this back to another
discussion we've been having, it has been suggested that thoughtless
developers might miss-use constraints. It seems to me that a developer
who can't use constraints correctly is unlikely to code the ICE state
machine correctly. So, are we worried about that kind of developer or
not?)  

Justin suggests that JSEP can provide the same flexibility that this
proposal does, at least to a sophisticated developer who understands how
to tweak it. Let's find out. I agree with Stefan that we should  draw up
a detailed list of differences and analyze them. At first glance, it
seems to me that many of the differences are independent of each other,
so that it is not a question of simply accepting or rejecting the entire
Microsoft proposal.

- Jim  

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Alexey Aylarov
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:11 PM
To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org ; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no
signs of offering real world interoperability

It was easy to expect from company which tries to build its own
standards all the time instead of team work on open technologies. If
they want to live in their own universe - it's their choice. We need to
continue team work on the future of open web communications.

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>I see that Microsoft decided to wait until the W3C and IETF were close
to done before putting together a proposal that, if accepted, would
explode most the current works and create maximal delay on this work. 
>
>http://blogs.skype.com/en/2012/08/customizable_ubiquitous_real_t.html
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb