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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 16:58 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 668BD21F9A3A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 XpvgOpccqtRu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9851321F9A31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp16so6453283pbb.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:57 -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=ANWeHQ5E8PVmKrghBWPMm9VeP7s3Dm0tS0Tt0WlsGNU=; b=XrlwKBAXP2TM6WP6VCpi+3x2u/64Ili8gHEO2zZoBbuOhF9rDG7gnwVaS9+VgpnogO Gf4k27aZ/tbZVfC/mZ79U3/ZWv7o/xUvsDdU6iMengTB67FrYHjPAd4CctI3BKDp7qWh gaVPO9WqVg6QKybeL+6+Xb3iEW7g2XYuv98Uoxjjs/qJ0Ag+aO2Yth+IvAPdNMvBg88e +Er70/i8Zc19yBopZWaD/bTnqC4BLyNkdYl67DC1F3FgUEemTG5EuKafX/YfDjQ/aiYD mEu2eI91KRFHkUnY68/KkfHLOn4JD2nMU0mPuBaQBE5G5R2mKToCoof51iBL2GJl/Erj iaAQ==
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=ANWeHQ5E8PVmKrghBWPMm9VeP7s3Dm0tS0Tt0WlsGNU=; b=dY+inV+uXW9ibJWc5PSn4L5UYUPzIl4TT7wCu+P0YgHWrbsNU9AjJmS3j84kQOtpwm 5BBQjckOBwKBr6EiEp/7GrqC0X2a2CgTS4Xw7F8hQmOuIbl2/C2+aUvslK2ZuqWqNPU1 oJWLB/2Td5atnAX0NSNHL+7Zpxmxvu+fAuX++GSWNKGp+AxXynbFZ+OxTW2ArbsTVkie k12e1i2lRsWsEj2NuohCg5EaAUrMOFYBAN/4ii14jqS06+pDgWj0N/tD2Jh0vtWLccoy LqlKGV7zZ0BWpvExRs1o0Boa3D4D7AV9XmQFLrY42c23m7cjJoCz3n6bXNmLTYhqjloj JKpw==
X-Received: by 10.66.122.163 with SMTP id lt3mr12275730pab.219.1371747537313; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:58:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE8nSDZv-omoTT_LFtwDK_v-bFt0eRFEZa+tfDiQPxrnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf16048aef73804df98dce4
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkpF2oYb0X0Oi3+kN3qj1xfsskdZacWlmVuCvY7hLu8cSgAQXEGCM4tGVyLrrp0nq6wVcbQQ4S5H35dz8Dtet7rTnctVyD7FdbsKG3zA5l+EMCtn/4ly6/YsY3MReB9rBeH+72fon2eyn0EAWn/eez6CN8CB6F/AGNKX1/VpFroDDw5ykI1vmP/OhLLFHcoFqqQUv+
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 16:58:58 -0000

"Some of the more sophisticated features such as SSRC signaling and
bundling could become part of WebRTC 2.0"

That's tantamount to saying Plan A vs. Plan B vs. NoPlan is part of WebRTC
2.0.  Is that what you're suggesting?



On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Hutton, Andrew <
andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>; wrote:

>
> IMHO the re-opening of the debate on "SDP or not SDP" is not the right
> approach to making progress at this moment in time as it would only serve
> to slow the process even further and reopen all the old arguments.
>
> The agreement albeit a W3C agreement was to assess the requirements for a
> lower level API (Without SDP) once a first release of WebRTC is achieved
> and I think we should not reverse that agreement there was strong consensus
> on that at the time.
>
> However I think we should have a close look at our priorities and what we
> really need to get to what would effectively be WebRTC 1.0. My feeling is
> that we are trying to do too much.
>
> Let's take a short pause for breath and think about what we really need
> for a successful WebRTC 1.0 as I think we are maybe focused on the wrong
> issues and we seem to have got diverted from the priorities set in the
> charter (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charter/).
>
> For example to make even basic WebRTC applications easily deployable we
> need to resolve the firewall issues as stated in the charter (bullet 3). We
> don't even have an adopted draft for that yet but I hope that can be
> changed very soon.  If WebRTC apps work from my home but not when I check
> in to a hotel or go to my office then we really have a problem even with
> the most basic audio only apps.
>
> In conclusion, let's focus on the requirements specified in the charter,
> concentrate on more basic issues relating to security and deployment that
> really need to be solved now. Some of the more sophisticated features such
> as SSRC signaling and bundling could become part of WebRTC 2.0.
>
> Let's make WebRTC 1.0 successful as soon as possible.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> > Sent: 18 June 2013 17:36
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
> >
> > Hi all, I re-send this mail in a new thread.
> >
> >
> > Dear WG Chairs,
> >
> > With all due respect, IMHO there is too much controversy about SDP
> > usage in WebRTC so I would like to request the WG to reopen the "SDP
> > or not SDP" debate.
> >
> > I would also appreciate that those in favour of mandating SDP as the
> > core communication for WebRTC explain their rationale again (given the
> > number of arguments against SDP and the frustration SDP is causing),
> > and also that they give arguments and responses to all the SDP related
> > issues nicely summarized in this mail:
> >
> >   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07873.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Iñaki Baz Castillo
> > <ibc@aliax.net>;
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>