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

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Thu, 20 June 2013 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 133E421F9E0D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.258
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.258 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 0F49Cs4I06xL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us2.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.238]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FC821F9FFF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.30.185]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1A94E638E0B; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:05:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1371751518; bh=UF3XRO77cFXMG8m+9uFTBbYfhpMc8Sxq6JPmhk1f834=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Y4QOTtrXHvT34P5SwQGA/rmayzXCq5COUCybFKS0d+VWHMGoG8r8JyLtKriq7r6gb w3HdmwyWAmx94wTiN8IwoEIc+tEp/e1Z+ykHA/8fVbx3NXjZhBTRnQyLgCq0axmhXm IZykGwyj6XQXevdnWN7kglPMx7Y9EL7pzCBNZPkA=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: "'Hutton, Andrew'" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:35:08 +0530
Message-ID: <00b401ce6de0$b6638380$232a8a80$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHObEJByY7ZqkO+CkSPIPqSfmn6rpk+jpkggABE8GA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0C0202.51C3445E.00CB, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.142
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 18:05:29 -0000

Hi Andy,

Your proposed approach looks reasonable way to move forward.

In case SDP improvements like multiplexing, bundling is taken the priority for WebRTC 1.0 which results in discussing whether offer/answer is required or not for those enhancements, then it will lead to discuss whether SDP is required or not as well. 

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hutton, Andrew
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:56 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate
> to be re-opened .
> 
> 
> 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