IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Last Change for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis

Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Fri, 05 May 2023 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 13730C159495 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTpXAuGG670c for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp001-out.apm-internet.net (smtp001-out.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7789BC14F738 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 37687 invoked from network); 5 May 2023 14:02:51 -0000
X-APM-Out-ID: 16832953713768
X-APM-Authkey: 255286/0(159927/0) 585
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 5 May 2023 14:02:51 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA09C81844; Fri, 5 May 2023 15:02:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra003.verygoodemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yWl-0OduVDBM; Fri, 5 May 2023 15:02:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [192.67.4.73]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4C3B8183E; Fri, 5 May 2023 15:02:51 +0100 (BST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
From: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <8ABC994A-FDB3-4E89-8CD7-F5954E2D761D@sn3rd.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 15:02:41 +0100
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4A04053D-C6F6-42E1-B0DD-5382C9E10FA2@westhawk.co.uk>
References: <8ABC994A-FDB3-4E89-8CD7-F5954E2D761D@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/kNIso7_GlmTTIh9JhvdUWhG9jVc>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last Change for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 05 May 2023 14:02:57 -0000

I’m in favour of us accepting this.

As I understand it, this moves control over the extensions that _may_ be used in a session up to the api level and removes the need for the application to manipulate the sdp when trying to disable extensions that are unsuitable for the current use-case.

T. 
> On 5 May 2023, at 14:43, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> We would like to get comments on a late breaking change to accommodate the W3C by 2359 UTC on 12 May 2023. Justin has created the following PR:
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/1033/files
> 
> The backstory here is that the WebRTC W3C WG is working on an extensions spec that introduces behavior which conflicts slightly with the current version of JSEP. There were two options: 1) define an extension to JSEP in the W3C specification, or 2) apply a tiny patch to JSEP before JSEP-bis that is currently in RFC Editor state.
> 
> Ted and I had a look at the changes. To our eyes the changes are editorial, but neither of us want to approve these changes at this late date without WG input.
> 
> Cheers,
> spt
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email