Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sat, 20 July 2013 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 8C9FB21E80D4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.225
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 TUo32ZTMPQws for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFE311E8165 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-vpn5-843.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66B0622E1F4; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfneUj=kzDjR_E1=S-bqAajaPUE3f_A2g8oGriFyPhamPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:24:55 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C837643-5DB1-4192-8DA3-6D999E867E77@iii.ca>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30CD1E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU401-EAS386F88B3FE140492B39B59693610@phx.gbl> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484213E41E7@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C50FDAD5-492C-4A83-AD6D-464242FB4A05@iii.ca> <CALiegfneUj=kzDjR_E1=S-bqAajaPUE3f_A2g8oGriFyPhamPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 01:24:58 -0000

On Jul 19, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:

> 2013/7/19 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>;:
>> Folks wanted to sort out how mindless works fist before getting to theses smaller details
> 
> Hi Cullen,
> 
> All these "smaller details" are in fact issues and problems we don't
> need. Issues not needed at all in WebRTC, issues that WebRTC
> developers and vendors should NOT care about. If those "smaller
> details" do exist is due the mandate of SDP. And all the time the WG
> (or WGs) will spent "fixing/defining" them is just wasted time, since
> nothing useful is being done for WebRTC by "defining" those "minor
> details".
> 
> Regards.
> 


Well lets prioritize fixing them. Which ones are causing interoperability problems between browsers?