[rtcweb] Division of labor (Re: Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 08 March 2013 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE7321F84DC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pSEebR6k7hx0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B55021F84BC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0C639E0FA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 22:25:18 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3da6tjytaIPb for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 22:25:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:84a9:6a28:85d0:194b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:84a9:6a28:85d0:194b]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9ECF639E0F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 22:25:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <513A5739.8010801@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:25:13 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <5139AF4C.70109@ericsson.com> <CAJrXDUFJBhvTzOcAhYPhEg9qgi8yZyFt-UeF60K7esA0+1v=PQ@mail.gmail.com> <5139EFF8.7040603@ericsson.com> <CAJrXDUFh0MtS3M6xvwvNBoY1EG6GKBGAoiKWHcOSrzZ1_mLWYw@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841620CC28@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841620CC28@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020303010004080505020601"
Subject: [rtcweb] Division of labor (Re: Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP)
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, 08 Mar 2013 21:25:22 -0000

On 03/08/2013 03:57 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
> Peter Thatcher:
>> Is the blob format defined by the IETF or the W3C?  If the W3C decided not to
>> use SDP as the blob, or not to use blobs at all, what would that mean for the
>> IETF?
> The W3C has apparently deferred to the IETF for everything, including what codecs should be mandatory and what the JavaScript API should look like.
The charters of the two WGs are interesting reading. I recommend reading 
them to anyone who wishes to know what the division of responsibilities 
was intended to be.


" This work will be done in collaboration with the W3C. The IETF WG will 
produce architecture and requirements for selection and profiling of the 
on the wire protocols. The architecture needs to be coordinated with 
W3C. The IETF WG work will identify state information and events that 
need to be exposed in the APIs as input to W3C. The W3C will be 
responsible for defining APIs to ensure that application developers can 
control the components."


" While the specified API Functions will not constrain implementations 
into supporting a specific profile, they will be compatible with the 
Profile that will be specified by the RTCWeb Working Group"

The last-quoted paragraph was inserted after a discussion that concluded 
that only one organization should have the mandatory-to-implement codec 
discussion, and that the IETF should be the one place.

> Why this is the case, I don't know, but eventually there will be a W3C specification and it will contain a bunch of references to other specs and those either will or will not be acceptable to the W3C WG as a complete API.
> Matthew Kaufman
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb