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

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