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

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Fri, 08 March 2013 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 15A7521F85B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:29:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, HTML_MESSAGE=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 ThJgaVoevS8e for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B580121F85B0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.155.229] (unknown [10.10.155.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9649B230005 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <513A5854.6020601@matthew.at>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:29:56 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841620CC28@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <513A5739.8010801@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <513A5739.8010801@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030007000008020407050507"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Division of labor (Re: 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 21:29:58 -0000

On 3/8/2013 1:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The W3C will be responsible for defining APIs to ensure that 
> application developers can control the components."

Yeah, that's the part that the W3C pretty much pointed at the JSEP draft 
and said "whatever IETF does"... and how you get a blob of SDP and an 
O/A state machine fighting back at you as "the JavaScript API".

Matthew Kaufman