Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 ECC1211E81A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-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 ilyM2DQCT4jO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB6F11E8197 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6JJ6Yb6085810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:06:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51E98E34.8060709@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:06:28 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30CD1E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU401-EAS386F88B3FE140492B39B59693610@phx.gbl> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484213E41E7@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C50FDAD5-492C-4A83-AD6D-464242FB4A05@iii.ca> <CALiegfneUj=kzDjR_E1=S-bqAajaPUE3f_A2g8oGriFyPhamPA@mail.gmail.com> <51E96B5B.2050302@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUFtPwHNznRHYgMpSr8U04Y+toDHubJ5fK-2qtnsURtL7g@mail.gmail.com> <51E97C41.5050208@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUE05ZGeH42z3r82V2cfZhu7oA3ODYwbtcqiEr+R0LB66Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUE05ZGeH42z3r82V2cfZhu7oA3ODYwbtcqiEr+R0LB66Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)
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, 19 Jul 2013 19:06:50 -0000

On 7/19/13 13:47, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> I think this is the real issue at hand:  You value legacy interop more 
> than a usable API.

This. *This* is why I've told you that you're misunderstanding 
everything. Don't take offense, just go back and read more carefully. I 
never said anything that implied that legacy interop is more valuable 
than a usable API. It's a nice strawman for you to build up and tear 
down, but you are arguing with a fictional character who is not me when 
you do so.

What I'm trying to point out is that these goals are not at odds with 
each other. Your statement above implies that you have taken it as given 
that we can't do both -- that there is a tradeoff here to be made. If 
you take that as a fundamental principle, then I can see how nothing I 
say makes any sense.

But they're not mutually exclusive goals. Keep that in mind, and go back 
to re-read what I've written.

/a