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

Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <elagerway@gmail.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 52F8911E80EE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 7JdKkLYqmZr9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386EE11E80E6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m19so3493607wev.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=5/qAl4BOpowLsm2rQGNoFgfUkMAEcEcB8Z9rd/DAw50=; b=iC653oj8cfzo90fGHNclb0CFz5yfCSLWHUSYaHS0BsZOVtwbr5BSWGtZ12B/xU+BGK XhQAuzzhZjroQufwIA9kwACylsbCMG6xikOA95qNAG6q3u/elvp9RTIvU65Ilrng5Zin kkK3EfDVxjkecY7MSjkYksuvjSzuTk7XKKwUiHRzUbXhyhr2boaZt5r04L9AjfERHwCi fn6vWBauwZpe/OtyVIBGI7Iz8ix+1s5ewM/tQDpX2e7L6BMWKO/sLOGpgF32lsU9GvLC PBggrhsLVAqLNtMtVa1E+/bBpzhl6/XZ0zuQ+iJBAczo/bSGtUe+Xg2lRLOBDDAIhKrn Xo7A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.198.175 with SMTP id jd15mr8192395wic.28.1371575955027; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: elagerway@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.22.132 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:19:14 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9LbDICuV8xE5BkLxn13wHPB-37E
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTZ3X2++8W28UD-S8eMoYH23YpHNWyC5wtLoVQNYHaXxsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b62495694fc3604df70e99a
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:19:17 -0000

+1 to re-open the debate re: SDP

Although, as MK and RR have commented, it's not just SDP that is the issue.
We need to take a hard look at O/A as well.

/Erik

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> |
*Hookflash<http://hookflash.com>
* | Twitter <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog<http://webrtc.is>
*
****


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:

> 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
>