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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

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