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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 A4BF221F9E8F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 toei7L8jTCnm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22a.google.com (mail-pb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106F221F9E6E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id un1so6471162pbc.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0t6Nsy2mXw6onui11vlyVLLzkRi8ZhSWGdZ2X498fkw=; b=nB/MiI14zg/18c94XFGD69uRsM6G1MwiCuGHG9h7B0kKHwc6sFglYEa7usl+85MCpa HEYom3HKQzPpaJdxzFMf3DyrYwpyx0gE/2dOpKyCmaJUe8dgK3IMb14UMHnqpPvDnNPA nRachxY5KLa3FhT8cilVP7nWv4v7KgVtpWnwJhd3kQf8AE8aQA47bw3/DCQ9ukZsz4H9 k8hx5p03dzZUTR84v2W8dKnj8zdGtVIqsnvqXYCyfS0kq+NOrS+WC042q4wGy/Q4bn6O VBpolyvlQe6KNWDJmLAoJdp9CA2AOiN/DyabqcyfGc2lMFUAVG63BtotFf46+WGbPl8w 7ybg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=0t6Nsy2mXw6onui11vlyVLLzkRi8ZhSWGdZ2X498fkw=; b=Lk5fKKnbugsevNtam5yHLyT0ykzmtCexzCCUEa7IW0pTORttSvFmnidOiwf02LFgkZ N5/BDluH7jQKdwaheWcXFx9IBwf2xaiUGCe7dwCwxfkAPiak8ii2jpBwTbPFTP3OhZj5 cvzSRovmtIxarc8CLI74u7/xsddXZJLXhljCeeqg5Glt29Tr+kA+mA3/O5SwzJtR5Hc/ QD8aETXI8bK/Od22vT3ADvNj+juFuwSWcuoNsyYnmRr/MPTuHKr8qK9O5kK2Vl/yQFSd ux50bJANxRzYpWPX0GOddPz0WVTQFu2t3w+H2qjeUqydqkGq9xnhRQAWaWrOLBjZjojo pIgA==
X-Received: by 10.68.69.108 with SMTP id d12mr8455859pbu.187.1371748733624; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1A1C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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> <CAJrXDUFvL2U5jfKMvcTJ_Pi_Yj=t1LoZO7MZTJcZavuByw5b_Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1680@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUGZ=M4SsSCYLUjs36C7JcbRPj2jhreKJgqH51YR_8oc-Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1A1C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:18:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHuHY5p-A5WprPJ1jUbe4+9RYoJoRJFbpMFyEJKhB=FBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174989eefd543404df99237d
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPz0RjCVb2+XGxb3c3XA6vCknpzhIjTllCo2NWr+vgmIYVqWhYMTFmq4/hDOEK9h97zYp2bd1y8D1I0kEaBfba9BIPuvZZ6X/vbuwAwGkiq/+6m+jqTkYj1FOHMnvEsOw8lnGJEWdXV0Y13+nsmvPeeUZizL5HI57EXhXlgs4qkXrUg39vgqOj/EP5017TV0g9cTxR
Cc: "rtcweb_ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 17:18:54 -0000

I think Plan A vs Plan B is very different than No Plan vs.  CU.  The first
is "we both agree on a text blob;  what goes in the text blob?".  The
second is "let's add a few methods" vs.  "let's through out everything and
start over".

If the WG decided "Let's throw out everything and start over with WebRTC
2.0", I'd be happy to help work on a "CU NoPlan" in that context.  On the
other hand, if the WG said "Let's try adding methods in an incremental way
that allow JS to avoid SDP in WebRTC 2.0", I'd be happy to work on that as
well.  But I don't think CU-RTC is going to work well in the latter, since
the authors categorically reject incremental improvement.






On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >>>> Why aren't we using the JavaScript object model for control of
> components instead of serializing our control requests via SDP/whatever
> format and hoping that it worked?
> >>>>
> >>> That's a great question. Have you read the CU-RTCWEB proposal? Is it
> any closer to what you imagined the RTCWEB API might be?
> >>>
> >>> My "NoPlan JS API" proposal also allows control of components without
> serialize control via a format, if the JS chooses to
> >>> do so (SDP is still there if JS wants).  It only does so for media
> streams, not for transports, but it allows incremental improvement to the
> API.
> >> So, IF we decide to remove SDP and Offer/Answer, we'll end up arguing
> about "Plan C(U) vs No Plan"? :)
> >
> > I think we already are :).
>
> At the virtual interim, the Plan A and Plan B folks were asked to sit down
> and try to come up with a compromise "Plan AB" solution.
>
> I guess it would be good if people that don't want SDP could try to come
> up with a compromise "CU No Plan" solution :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>