IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 BEB5121F9DBE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.538
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 p-V2BUM2DR2c for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.106]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50B321F9A3A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W19 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:46 -0700
X-TMN: [lIAKc5gyXmRs6/oVjWMmT6GjIUHoWs/7]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W1951EAABA535D79F94A9D1938E0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c9e37372-ee8f-4cf4-b4f2-9d1e43fb64c5_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:46 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUE8nSDZv-omoTT_LFtwDK_v-bFt0eRFEZa+tfDiQPxrnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>, <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>, <CAJrXDUE8nSDZv-omoTT_LFtwDK_v-bFt0eRFEZa+tfDiQPxrnA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2013 17:16:46.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1815980:01CE6DD9]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 17:16:52 -0000

Peter Thatcher said: 
"Some of the more sophisticated features such as SSRC signaling and bundling could become part of WebRTC 2.0"




That's tantamount to saying Plan A vs. Plan B vs. NoPlan is part of WebRTC 2.0.  Is that what you're suggesting?



[BA] If the "Plan A" vs. "Plan B" issue is not resolved, then WebRTC v1.0 would really only cover audio scenarios adequately.   That might make sense if we believed that WebRTC API 2.0 would go in a different direction and be concluded quickly. However, I'd observe that just because something isn't specified in a standard doesn't mean it won't be widely implemented.   And once you have functionality widely implemented, you typically have to deal with backward compatibility - and when the thing to be backward compatible with isn't specified, then it's a bit of a headache.

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email