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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 18:47 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 8598A21F9E1B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, 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 rs4ILLmbvqL3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA15D21F9E59 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id um15so5310155pbc.24 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:47:17 -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=TZ8d9WUDpibXphADSWgblRVP/eC6y0x+/RKrsVUNHyc=; b=UhWD3kC4ei+H3f0iOJVtNmo45bi5O4QsFXUkJlw1rOLxpZMOU79Pd0vs+cOucANWGF sQ99un9DF1yyxfL+fWrhlAFgQgntcv7EUXg16gOSwlRQYjV/qL0OMUghyq3xnAQ5LZkZ MKDzuLou/CeYu0jI7L6LxgkQw+JPj/RnEAeZCaVI1VlzIN7enH5k62EkYsdROplg/pgD sEFifyknHmqIR8F30UwJ5knu9CTNVA+ETh200eLXJP2iOvg7Xkp7eyDMW0KY0Vu7VzJY O08EYvr5rE0PCVYRF45a7DXjPtyXrscxyYLtfk4i5bAKywszrZW+hfPLpSR7dK8Xg9HL xkkw==
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=TZ8d9WUDpibXphADSWgblRVP/eC6y0x+/RKrsVUNHyc=; b=CQgMGXiRWE/VYAawb7O3LmzJrwE0M50mjqf9fD/qJ4hytCcvGus0v2kkz2M1cc7/ao G4krXOZ8PFSwK+c51oEndNaWmuDECD4VtrTIcc8168oV0xikYqHf2NbLnADhdTRHTkqG HAMIF6nuKjhxPyV7rJ5BY8aNVyBErlsnXMDxPkTs97Mc6uJpx9TdwaVpDk7P7gHzTjsW b23gcu5FKwuqodRP8T4Gp5ERcpnBaDE/1O1KtPvzeNIfJbNJes6u0K8z+P2IWksmPMbI +viweaPviHAV6XmeE+qOrTyjIPbQLIkVgpWzP1d/+jEsSLjKL9x/2ZDRLKL9bnd0DO81 MFow==
X-Received: by 10.66.240.70 with SMTP id vy6mr8171553pac.70.1371667637195; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C1F5ED.9090308@matthew.at>
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>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:46:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFvL2U5jfKMvcTJ_Pi_Yj=t1LoZO7MZTJcZavuByw5b_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15aba943fb8304df864266
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn73gi7R0IjyO76YjHpbmUjt6nFnrMqpf99XOmjATc3fGMmLvxyvbOVwfYc1gQi7Skwk9ecmcqytG/a7VvFXDrSSlQdRv7K22cWmgqwxkdwIPHBE6YIPEiY7Uv1CWAOUeVVoBXREicKrUqdCExXydeppmVMscWnOSjMplOS6Twj8WBTKB6+GZZXWznS0Zc+yg+eK51O
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:47:20 -0000

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>wrote;wrote:

>  On 6/19/2013 11:05 AM, Robin Raymond wrote:
>
>
> 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.


>
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>