Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability

"Jim Barnett" <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> Mon, 06 August 2012 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.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 58AAE11E80F9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Mwva2iMFPZj6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com (relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com [198.49.180.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C15811E80DE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g2.genesyslab.com (g2.genesyslab.com [192.168.20.138]) by relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q76LCEi1021057; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com ([192.168.20.93]) by g2.genesyslab.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:12:14 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:11:42 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81068E1080@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
In-Reply-To: <502031F8.8020104@digium.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
Thread-Index: Ac10F3osEMHXjZFjRMKKxmN75hDYsQAAGJWQ
References: <53223349-A31F-4381-899F-82E29B0A0B6C@cisco.com><CACHLvecT1AgJRo=xM5AH-fGZn+iYrtHqWk7Eym8QJn9U7YGcsg@mail.gmail.com><CAPk5xQv_ZNqo66LfApshWtRrvXuBMscnp3+kY_GMiibgD1BCqw@mail.gmail.com><AEF5DA45-0307-4170-A8B4-BAE6B25248C8@cisco.com><CAOJ7v-093zyfumK_z5dGhr8msNatfBABk6wD=g80GH2LG4055Q@mail.gmail.com> <502031F8.8020104@digium.com>
From: "Jim Barnett" <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
To: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2012 21:12:14.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[27150AE0:01CD7418]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:12:20 -0000

As I recall, we recently discussed the idea of an API abstraction on top
of the SDP and rejected it.  I think that the reasoning was that it was
an unnecessary complication.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Kevin P. Fleming
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 5:07 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no
signs of offering real world interoperability

On 08/06/2012 03:19 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Note also that pre- and post-processing of media are not covered by 
> this proposal, those concepts are in the domain of MediaStream (and 
> post-processing is possible today through various methods).
>
> In fact, I think the primary novel features of this proposal are:
> - SessionDescriptions are true objects, instead of wrappers around SDP
> - Additional control over the ICE Agent
>
> However, no use cases have yet been outlined that require this 
> functionality.

I doubt you'll ever see a use case that *requires* SessionDescription
objects, since the identical behavior can be achieved (in most cases) by
handling SDP directly. As has been previously discussed, though, using
objects would make life easier for JS developers, and might lead to more
natural solutions to problems that have been recently posted on this
list (like inspection of offers to determine which parts should be
accepted and which should not).

--
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming@digium.com | SIP: kpfleming@digium.com | Skype:
kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at
www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb