Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 19:43 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 B2D4111E81B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, 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 XyH+GGKQZGXS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D78311E81AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id kq12so1444783pab.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:43:18 -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=PvpbLkcOvfkH3EanBTafUSMWjV0vtLd8mLuanm0fp/8=; b=EpJ3N1X0ErcQYcgikPFwkDYGkzG2ucw52kShsNdDpFDPFqOTJ+PVaE3nCkV/kyT1w6 qxG73qgLlDc9V5KDbziQIrnSKDo3sioeCcC0WJ7Lcf3HUpxW6p1XKJa0jJQNyw3eajry 1w+11OqhNNF8t5g4mlPNB7evy79JZu2nxm68erUK5bbxpszp43yRLfB3dLh7o3mywkE8 2dtcDA8SJ8ZYJQ/bKa499t/RTfux2je/hEyJbVHSXQIruZ3jV+pRvloQfSF6WH/ndBLb isr7rIPu6KgZmviFcslKyJl8WVtzDOU/1p8lVl1+91tRj5ofx167ZJom6Ibf8EIR70pb 70Qw==
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=PvpbLkcOvfkH3EanBTafUSMWjV0vtLd8mLuanm0fp/8=; b=oVrnKlMFxxH3cxhH/NU5MJC7CxCDdxnuciuiBjrtW3aWL4seuQdXRhyT3dDCHFSnRx Wlvio6lcyvPJOQHsTwh/FxjxdpnM6SJf1sMSihFVYgKHPKQO6KtIkT5/+Dza4JjisjO6 Dzvwxkz8WqVt0xn9JFzkRCBergAjrdWb+/Iirom9+IX7CwPuL1/XHenX+RXZCJ7PzHYi wvhkdCAEtY7uSlr3/6fI6X5L4vUjsyW2924h9MHpL1biZF0dMY7sbcxHx76jDSKx0g+/ 29aoT/gmDeu06pEq/mh61yHwRccg4+5w1i9fh3HXp4sAy5kZICIPvSv+w02Zp63mf9se knEA==
X-Received: by 10.66.142.5 with SMTP id rs5mr20107859pab.168.1374262998774; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.78.195 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51E98E34.8060709@nostrum.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30CD1E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU401-EAS386F88B3FE140492B39B59693610@phx.gbl> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484213E41E7@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C50FDAD5-492C-4A83-AD6D-464242FB4A05@iii.ca> <CALiegfneUj=kzDjR_E1=S-bqAajaPUE3f_A2g8oGriFyPhamPA@mail.gmail.com> <51E96B5B.2050302@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUFtPwHNznRHYgMpSr8U04Y+toDHubJ5fK-2qtnsURtL7g@mail.gmail.com> <51E97C41.5050208@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUE05ZGeH42z3r82V2cfZhu7oA3ODYwbtcqiEr+R0LB66Q@mail.gmail.com> <51E98E34.8060709@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:42:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHiNHOn9zMa9hNiRYd+t2ZNDZ4BZ8CFk-iG5UA8wYKThA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11330f2aded74204e1e28938
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmeZ9IDO7tQUpUqaIQnVeCHsnhBTnyAUtCpZZvg5qzI2BMkjCAGxdjZq8bveSMvVBdjdBm6MNRWeXYFfdA9E8Ug/uY/gtWqWFCIdQOwaKmetnf4uuCbEtz7i//sj84bXEnenfoKTDchxgvZGY5Abw4M4xJJzOGg+xhb69zrZqgyuxkatPyuQiFL99qKQwMFX0vdXmSi
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: 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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:43:24 -0000

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> On 7/19/13 13:47, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>> I think this is the real issue at hand:  You value legacy interop more
>> than a usable API.
>>
>
> This. *This* is why I've told you that you're misunderstanding everything.
> Don't take offense, just go back and read more carefully. I never said
> anything that implied that legacy interop is more valuable than a usable
> API. It's a nice strawman for you to build up and tear down, but you are
> arguing with a fictional character who is not me when you do so.
>
> What I'm trying to point out is that these goals are not at odds with each
> other. Your statement above implies that you have taken it as given that we
> can't do both -- that there is a tradeoff here to be made.

If you take that as a fundamental principle, then I can see how nothing I
> say makes any sense.
>
> But they're not mutually exclusive goals. Keep that in mind, and go back
> to re-read what I've written.
>
>
You are claiming that there is no tradeoff between API usability and legacy
interop.  If that is the case, then why have we designed such a terribly
unusable API?  If we can have an API with both legacy interop and
usability, then why didn't we create that API?  If we can make an API that
serves both sides (roughly, "web developers" and "legacy interop") well,
why have we picked an API that only serves one well?

I do believe that we can have an API that provides both good usability and
legacy interop, and that can server both sides (and even more sides) well.
 But is most assuredly not the API we've designed so far, and it's not the
API we're headed toward (at least not with "1.0").  I have hope for the 2.0
API, but let's not kid ourselves.  The 1.0 API picked a side and ran with
it.



> /a
>