Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Fri, 08 March 2013 14:23 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 66D9F21F8622 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:23:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.828
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TOORXLfYYFNy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9494521F85E7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id er20so1722407lab.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:23:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NlkLATnqyUIO7XbqNaOlix2vAE4MxwxoHIcvCfNsEIE=; b=VKdGmDYT2IUEA8TY4DLz7Sy0c8zvKMbHzLiB7z6cUHtE+eUbo7GLRZeug27om7kZBE fhbas2YpYgJuDOy8HuuGrDVLxt5mH8PEpm2BrvtUqi742jnP/Q9AnkNNKwWTOuW/ncne Y6LsjtmjfRqKauw7gzhGg0BXepOzL6Gnce1b5gNOYxcH1yVSm8CzSBW4/UtTEFgHhUFh I4LPR8n6eB3lWAMuX9W5+jG1YW3mFAwTUQgLH9t6tP89KsIQl37kUgVouhFfJF5z423p AQ4Uj6qBcw+iU47EkGK8lwB7xdEhTc18yX+NawW+6PzgqmramLgn1xyZJGkgiVQa2HkP tC0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=NlkLATnqyUIO7XbqNaOlix2vAE4MxwxoHIcvCfNsEIE=; b=MSDoK6akOa46nFyYilOZ8/dptlRuNrniJDVHLb9SQWrHjdb8b6A8am6HweNwHqQv4n oP6Qc6PDTFSx2rXySgl07tVNV2Oc4lC23H1HI34QkACf1OioFjnBuc+7PWEDyFWNUNCR LQKlbaw6lYdALjUanhr3gT2/5hv2rIHptKzE2BQNpgah9ijqq75etG6IQBJReV+Z0nbs m4r9IgTeopsOIKb71z8T073+y4nkUEGYSdWJgT0aj+U+vty8jWY+UYABHIcNovi2J6HY 0pYgcq3K29b/ZeOfBZzsmLeboTOx0wCVjAWgYgiYD3K5TGOPYAr9frPNY1hDQsR4MaSX WyuA==
X-Received: by 10.152.46.131 with SMTP id v3mr2152104lam.57.1362752637507; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:23:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.6.5 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:23:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5139F18A.6060100@ericsson.com>
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <5139AF4C.70109@ericsson.com> <CAJrXDUFJBhvTzOcAhYPhEg9qgi8yZyFt-UeF60K7esA0+1v=PQ@mail.gmail.com> <5139EFF8.7040603@ericsson.com> <CAJrXDUFh0MtS3M6xvwvNBoY1EG6GKBGAoiKWHcOSrzZ1_mLWYw@mail.gmail.com> <5139F18A.6060100@ericsson.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:23:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEo3NO9-iHczP8NNGvNr1J0skx_bLeBGB6ZE8CATO-_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_H=C3=A5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZ80WtBs0ih73hu1d0YIEq23iDLGk1yaXCECpj2DdvVbzARaifZRXz1Hc+x47LKbi0o40Yp7DIJwS/+gIrVzuAWpOyMeoNAeCHtYP7aFVHhpBWROBptnqqzx6AZznLmZyXaz7uIPCgWYePkEGHq/G4EPQY3K/toYn3SahgPPrpai+e4UTroTDRCQKFsTbpvPl2ganH
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP
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, 08 Mar 2013 14:23:59 -0000

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-08 15:07, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>>
>> Is the blob format defined by the IETF or the W3C?
>
>
> It is defined by the IETF currently.
>

But that's only because the W3C chose SDP, which is defined by the
IETF.  The W3C has effectively delegated its API surface to the IETF.
Which blob format to use in the first place (SDP, something else, or
none at all) is still, ultimately, a W3C decision.  Right?

So, should the IETF WG's standing response to Robin and future
developers like him (and I'm sure the same thing will come up many
times for  many years) be "we don't talk about non-SDP around here" or
 should it be "that's a W3C issue.  Please share your input with their
working group"?  The latter seems to me much more friendly.