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

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 9AB5321F9D67 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
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 f8qM6MTn8uaG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E5B21F9E57 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [10.10.155.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418BF250041; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51C33DDF.4010104@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:37:35 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C1B907.8060508@hookflash.com> <CAJrXDUG06jvPvhfNwZ6Puzxj7E4XxELG_fU=S7B_c=tnC9eoNQ@mail.gmail.com> <78192824-A516-4376-8D4F-3B052ED47A0C@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUGOYc_Z_qWD7J0ZzVdfwYOacH_p5PjZEg5aP1LUetffMA@mail.gmail.com> <51C1F2E9.20405@hookflash.com> <51C1F5ED.9090308@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUFvL2U5jfKMvcTJ_Pi_Yj=t1LoZO7MZTJcZavuByw5b_Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1680@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUGZ=M4SsSCYLUjs36C7JcbRPj2jhreKJgqH51YR_8oc-Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1A1C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHuHY5p-A5WprPJ1jUbe4+9RYoJoRJFbpMFyEJKhB=FBQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C339EA.3050103@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUFFQc2z+1WVz21poOBy9QsrzcRZV53EHSn4mcLoSKh3YA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUFFQc2z+1WVz21poOBy9QsrzcRZV53EHSn4mcLoSKh3YA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb_ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:37:36 -0000

On 6/20/2013 10:31 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> Would you support incremental improvements that remove the 
> offer/answer state machine?  If so, I suggest you draft and propose 
> such incremental improvements.  I would love to see them.
>

When we broke our proposal down into a bunch of different deltas, we got 
strong feedback at the W3C meeting in Lyon that nobody wanted to touch 
SDP as the API or Offer/Answer as something that is baked in to the browser.

We've done a whole lot of work on our proposal *and* have running code 
that demonstrates it. We're not going to waste any more time writing 
additional proposals that will also be rejected by the folks who really 
love SDP + O/A.

If someone else wants to take our work as a reference or starting point, 
great. If everyone wants to wait until the current API gets to W3C to 
see what formal objections we file, that's fine too.

Matthew Kaufman