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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 5F4D821F9C22 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zud7WCRKGIYf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B81A21F9A30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id l18so3763293wgh.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:22:40 -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:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=svhGGqmStcxWq+HMnOu08iueCYlYJKqc3t1JDhQX9Yw=; b=S42HA78s2+pDC6MfLNKx9aZlhKrpObGmoJ+APA9KDSLZkAnxzszQqQLqiHo0WFQPX4 POk5I/yqlSCdZ4GgOnRJ/w+JJjL0cN/U0yiQsCbtsht7ql++jR8kqQfheqt6uwtfRUZl jbWUv094Mx2oxFrwps4idFifAKb5CORsKOERDGXAG0WRxl8avoXc4X1PGHapbkpK5P8v KRwQvFsqsucvfF8+Lqy0twcZX8EmHqiQ71UKIgzW2TnYQiliYZOZqdzPkdOX3UV87bIC zCYP4yQF2Tab30sqCJqFlp5ezwC8s78heDE5A1cy92j9HK8TrJVBs5hPUwFqNqqCJoJW xbiA==
X-Received: by 10.180.211.7 with SMTP id my7mr29626870wic.26.1373296960508; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m6sm22169994wiy.8.2013.07.08.08.22.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so9160107wiw.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.9.212 with SMTP id c20mr29380375wib.65.1373296958260; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:22:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1879c5e4e6c04e1019da9
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmraL81y5fuL/tICfDkeile7TJ0LrriCnjWd/wC6ZVRRWk2kygVPjSSA+ZpJyEE1KeK4mqq
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:22:54 -0000

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>; wrote:

> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> > <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 7/3/13 11:37 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >      >     I'm glad to be wrong here.  Is the phrase "you shouldn't have
> to
> >      >     modify the SDP but rather there should be API points to cover
> >     most
> >      >     of the use cases"  the consensus of the working group?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > I thought it was, but I'm not the chair, so maybe you could ask
> >     Harald or
> >      > Stefan.
> >
> >     I definitely think this is the consensus of the working group.
> >
> >
> > Can you point out when exactly this consensus was reached? This is news
> > to me, but I definitely could have missed something.
>
> No I can't really. To be clear, no consensus call (or similar) has been
> held. But every time this is discussed, what I hear is people agreeing
> and no objections. It was discussed a bit, e.g., at the f2f at TPAC last
> year, if you read the minutes [1] you will find some traces of that
> discussion.
>

> And, I don't understand why there would be a debate about this. There
> are obviously many who want to define APIs (or constraints) that allow
> most use-cases to be met without having to modify the SDP. Why would
> anyone have anything against that? If there is anyone who really wants
> to modify the SDP instead (I have no clue why, but anyway) they can
> still do that.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Nov/0072.html
>
>
I would not disagree that there should not be any debate that things that
can be done through API should be done through API. My question is, was
there ever consensus that SDP should be a opaque non modifiable blob which
should not be used within the application to control things. Or is SDP just
a more advanced API surface that is supposed to be used to implement more
advanced scenarios? Is this group even suppose to specify what can be
modified in by the application SDP or is it supposed to be an empty set?
So, was there ever a consensus that "developers MUST NOT touch SDP"?

_____________
Roman Shpount