Re: [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: Draft agenda for IETF 87)
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 18:29 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 E41DD21F9F6B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 p2mTtMVHKzd0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22c.google.com (mail-wg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DC721F9F72 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m15so8291128wgh.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SEnNJb0S6Dy/X3x+83FEDTkFfns61x46ZX4m76I3vMI=; b=o81HExJ0pPboUJuSpMQKCNLpsEUY5oQG6JGRgbgKUqIhQpvOY1GvRgiZK7r+tRq22F 1ujGCId/zDJNM1/Qr8Aq6M0Adsj3RHR6NVzkfH2ViF/2OHL4SThBq0wKd4HcdWt7xd20 yqJ9CgH7b06iLDpISbXsI9pxHpNYqBwqI9vwpyMcpGp+ZFvw9YCDTYUtOPUeKMLNJnYm 6yNrMbqBakqytEJYig4EItwBbv5MtTH3mvnyUHuk7xdBTKjQKeuG2PynrtzZoJd4+ot3 dhALT8TNxL9ji+AN9pJfy443mqPkkuLjJGXT423JQOcmThpBqBt9Sw0pzzY3EgMiS/O/ Yevw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.110.6 with SMTP id hw6mr25253776wjb.3.1373653721281; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUEUm5dLq_V0LeyG5Tqdjtkn=vM_dfVDs9pSR7ok81+a7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWxOCcPH15c9mCGw93LkLJqgWi4J63m=2aDxDYY_wsVVw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUEUm5dLq_V0LeyG5Tqdjtkn=vM_dfVDs9pSR7ok81+a7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWVJEM7T183HVzUQCxXGcQGVykVrs6Upi1aa2hVFOieHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: Draft agenda for IETF 87)
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, 12 Jul 2013 18:29:13 -0000
On 12 July 2013 11:21, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > If we write it down with such detailed instructions, is a browser banned > from accepting more than the explicitly allowed SDP in calls to > setLocalDescription and setRemoteDescription? For example, what if lots of > web apps get SDP from a particularly popular gateway device that adds a > particular SDP attribute, and if the browser "listens" to that SDP > attribute, things work better (for example, it might be a bandwidth-related > attribute). Can the browser "listen" to that SDP attribute even though it > isn't explicitly supported by the WG? Or does it have to wait for it to be > added to the explicit instructions? That depends entirely on the nature of the instructions. Allowing for extensibility is always really, really hard, but maybe there is enough experience with SDP now that this sort of scenario could be supported.
- [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: Draf… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: … Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: … Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: … Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Another reason not to use SDP (was: … Matt Fredrickson