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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 97A1021F9C90 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 fLlMjx6DBlFq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1F921F9C14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e11so11511762iej.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=REKJAPvSUTgCLIBB4RhIVzLu9ssPT9yhOXFA7RulSxQ=; b=zLw4TBBsYYEIBCnmGxHkEz3zrzIqDkGIxPstjxkF/Oby50GBNF384V5NU9GdF8ijE0 +M42FioqhhGAIFuRfZeYV7AARFAeWxEeetPJIVhkBik7Bpfz74SV8F+ZwhdZrn/iEFmk B5hxKZXk2EUYcXdWWrfzhnro7Chdp5+anmqIul9xV4eg1S6FB+mCQN03VOXL7epjDJFr Lrg4kJ8z+JIMzYsyeoDyw9L1a5JnalyvJ1x2jpGkdIJ34AvXL2qWe8d3BzIRxnm4793u Eyg59dYriPG5hynBZByk1pOWq5w3tVbcBXlduj0wxBHYfPjmli4ge9pqKif35C5F6NpE 0zLw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.17.166 with SMTP id p6mr8526750igd.12.1371586512778; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.49.7 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:15:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDk2L3SBPC08WU_5RcL16-Wzv8Mocj3-Qzmxz2E24ERGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340cc9df85c004df735e30
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:15:16 -0000

I've read the messages on this thread up to lunchtime in California on June
18th.  I have not consulted with the other chairs, because we are still
somewhat out of synch, so this is my personal response, rather than a chair
response.

SDP occurs as an API control surface in this protocol, and it may also be
used in O/A semantics between endpoints.  The request does not clearly
state which aspect is asking for reconsideration.  Since one is handled in
a different group, that is critical.  Secondly, the requirement the group
has is that the solution *provides support sufficient to allow O/A
semantics*, not that these must be used between two parties using the same
signalling.   Being clear on what you would like to see by writing a draft
proposal, rather than simply asking to re-open concluded discussions would
be helpful.

Speaking very personally, I would like to see the group close having
completed its milestones.  While I am very aware that re-using a syntax
like SDP makes for some unpleasant moments, I'm not sure that any system
that actual has any level of interoperability with existing SIP deployments
as a goal will avoid that unpleasantness--at best, you have a mechanism on
one end that looks different *but must be mapped to SDP* in the
interoperability case.   Creating something new that accomplishes that and
is substantially better than SDP seems like a long task to me.

Again, not as a chair decision or statement, but to give some response to
the points made.

regards,

Ted Hardie