Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 03 July 2013 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 3FF6011E80E2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.268, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 EGzbllOj91De for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f52.google.com (mail-qe0-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B8511E824A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i11so423594qej.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=ygBIKgdD6Kl+Fxhq0CjZR9OmFazARoTjUojLsmnMm6I=; b=BsvGOwVe2Moz+OkXBPIyBBk0arCvtUS420fVWf+CcNOjk981IulZ780i0cDO2KpM+T It5wq9wRF8KmBjkPZKgmo/m3kjda7lbrmatu73vmkggrqVZxuYnVpol3l0pF2c34I89B Ch/TMAy9FmzpykK4FOSu46pg/OTWDOBUrZq/qhWCXSlE9U0HxjCmNEEIyhSF+i3xPdyc yLHSwjbRabIYZl0veeL6tPuzWsEdstdg+bcRQnDUl5zZb43eh5mUYOa8JmV6oPWYtkun lU/DzIO/4QNwL7v7maCJwID3R+YgPfwlYFQLYl0kORS9VBA+CPiyqo0D3JAPms8uAH0j dlYg==
X-Received: by 10.224.90.1 with SMTP id g1mr6650638qam.0.1372889861518; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMCGdY=LS0OG22aFdhwU2m_-H4_sHb15SAYBT7e2_4RLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMCGdY=LS0OG22aFdhwU2m_-H4_sHb15SAYBT7e2_4RLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 00:17:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfk9nqabnnF8tA5Qwg4_XUKB80sMpA59vm_2v3p4k3VOUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlVbvDTCbyaDMMl1ldZLQ12d/jo18utrXpFc5mhATsguD9iXkg7wK6C63zNKcxXu76F3rt1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:17:47 -0000

2013/7/4 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>;:
> Anyway, it's not like this feature is a surprise to anyone--well at
> least anyone who was paying attention--it's been a feature of the
> specification since before the WG was even formed. As I said
> earlier, it was in the original WHATWG spec that Ian Hickson
> wrote.

I know, and I was a  "SDP supporter" at the beginning (and much others
like me who, after dealing with it for something more than just single
audio+video phone calls, have changed their mind). I don't consider
that such a "original WHATWG spec" is written in a stone. It was an
initial proposal after all. Nothing prevents it to be radically
modified/improved now.

Best regards.




--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;