Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB

Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> Fri, 08 March 2013 14:57 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 9F43821F8626 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:57:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 7QVABKsPKscH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:57:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from service107-us.mimecast.com (service107-us.mimecast.com [207.211.31.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC4B21F8621 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail-us.genesyslab.com (168.75.250.3 [168.75.250.3]) (Using TLS) by service107-us.mimecast.com; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:57:28 -0500
Received: from GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com ([fe80::fc31:8268:eb4c:f8af]) by GENSJZFE01.msg.int.genesyslab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:57:26 -0800
From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
Thread-Index: AQHOG4X1bqeXKKMkOkGn8rQENJxOWZicZ2SA//96ejA=
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:57:25 +0000
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281026A26@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAtTOAw4hy5yRhdgW5=Ca9a9LjX9paZrR=+ABJGnJAU=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN75PncyA1euiZ-9rr=parAGnM43oAL0JQHykxnJ+3YWww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN75PncyA1euiZ-9rr=parAGnM43oAL0JQHykxnJ+3YWww@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [98.110.233.90]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MC-Unique: 113030809572801001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
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: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:57:30 -0000

Mary,
  How can there be interoperability issues if no one is required to use SDP over the wire?  Are you saying that there are things that we need that SDP cannot express (or cannot be extended to express)?  

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 9:50 AM
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB

As an individual that's also a chair, I truly do understand your pain.
 I realize that a change this late in the game is not at all a good thing.  I also realize the impact this might have on folks whose products are very entrenched in SDP (including my own employer).  But, this seems very much to be a pay now or pay later situation.  I have 100% confidence that this energetic and intelligent group of folks can come up with a protocol spec that relies on SDP - we have shown over and over that we can eventually make decisions when there are strong proponents with different approaches.  I don't debate that at all, but I am concerned about interoperability issues and the fragility of SDP.
 This is not at all a new sort of problem - it's a pattern that exists very often in product development.  In my experience, doing something that seems a little more novel and disruptive can be done more quickly than trying to work with existing code/architectures that are being pushed well beyond their limits (based upon original design intent).
I've seen this time and again in developing products.

We also have a number of situations in IETF where we have been determined to complete something based upon a decision that was made and we have successfully completed protocol documents in these cases.
However, we have a number of these cases where those documents just get put on a shelf.

Best Regards,
Mary



On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> For any working group to be able to make consistent progress, it must 
> be able to rely on decisions that have already been taken to remain
> stable in the absence of new technical issues.    Re-raising old
> issues without new information does not help move the work forward, 
> and, as tempting as it may be for those who raised it the initial 
> times, nor does a chorus of "I thought that all along".
>
> For the specific question in the thread entitled "Proposed Plan for 
> Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP", I believe every 
> point in the thread has been raised before.  SDP has been unlovely and 
> arcane for many years, so this is not new news.  Despite that old 
> news, we have run consensus calls on this topic in both the IETF and 
> the W3C and agreed to use both it and offer/answer.
>
> May I politely suggest we finish that work *before* we examine the 
> need and feasibility of an addtional, potentially lower-layer approach 
> to this?  Finishing the work before us does not close off all related 
> work for all time, but failure to produce something viable soon likely 
> will.
>
> I'm not sure what hat to wear for this message, so assume a "grumpy 
> old timer" porkpie, size 7 and 3/8ths.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
> _______________________________________________
> 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