IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 20 June 2013 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 09B3321F9C99 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Z6whBWiMS4fy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA3721F94D3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BD739E1EE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:32:45 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsDHOKpKQ4Q0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:32:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A60F39E057 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:32:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51C3209B.1030501@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:32:43 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDk2L3SBPC08WU_5RcL16-Wzv8Mocj3-Qzmxz2E24ERGg@mail.gmail.com> <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUGqSvsosZJhcRR-kCwEX1g_wvPnSZPmmcNwggk+Z9WNCA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWfV=5xBaRqAddqUURThs9J4T4+0HK4Ux07VA51r5oC3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFNGKvWHw-yqeApEdTeuqMNPTDxvdKZ2DuzANmcR2y2CQ@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> <51C20FAA.4050701@hookflash.com> <CABkgnnWw9anT+h_hnF14nBChS73qpTb31hSM=p2KnGrcRPGRJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWw9anT+h_hnF14nBChS73qpTb31hSM=p2KnGrcRPGRJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040105080908080701020701"
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 15:32:56 -0000

On 06/19/2013 10:15 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 13:08, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com 
> <mailto:robin@hookflash.com>> wrote:
>
>     One thing that is missing for CU-RTCWeb is the JavaScript shim
>     that proves that the SDP / SIP folks can produce a reasonable
>     implementation for the simple API they do need to interface with
>     SIP/SDP based devices and infrastructure. I know it shouldn't be
>     Skype job to produce that shim but I don't think anyone will adopt
>     anything unless it's demonstrably easy for the SIP world (unless I
>     misunderstand their objections).
>
>
> We sketched out some designs for this that indicated that it is at 
> least feasible.  It's not that easy though - prancer in particular 
> complicates things considerably - and we managed to find more 
> important things to spend time on before we could do anything 
> significant.  Full compliance with the specification, rather than just 
> an SDP implementation, is not something that is easily replicated.

I think interoperability with an application written to the 
implementations that are based on the current specifications (that is - 
a Javascript application that you could load into both Chrome and your 
demo of CU-RTCWeb, using a JS shim in your demo, and have them talk to 
each other) would be a pretty compelling argument.

If it didn't use PR-Answer, that would only detract a little bit from 
the compellingness.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email