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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:42 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 0BBFF21F9E14 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 c-2JPClI+q5H for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FC521F9DFB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id tj12so6507571pac.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kc3XbaFiFHrnpa6RjLa7wlidFy7Dz+PTLk8+YBl2ZwY=; b=XDDaRMwBKp4A0iRFlQ9d5vC4P2qsTA6JMw8owgRL4Ea5OXC8ZH+KcmnhLlbX8H5Esf s+9gIyYx71U7N6+v3E0adGsn0bgicMWdQnLcJYNB+g8gWVzSPf7tstLVy+7R+qwN9EdK bX7Vnp3+hQ4VS3urEsqbUhQjrnnFlDXZWs6JBwCf/XqEN68ORw09H/ZOQP2hWzotYh+1 db3WdJS3VdJBPUA5KdazAoA0W7z7P2geBeKPwJ9p5JsNYvqlNq43N8Bb6JNIo9535jpy M1jgpyZG99K1ZjFaIgwOWtaMsEPo+Q3+pMRTERCBXds+y54D7iR78S6MuQvSaECZVw5G m8CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=kc3XbaFiFHrnpa6RjLa7wlidFy7Dz+PTLk8+YBl2ZwY=; b=LGLRdU4ODZwyZkMUxuU7frm1mefuzJ9XVAYOx4I8ijSA8bh0GAEF+dkjItY2i2mfJE n8CTFH8zAiqP3yc89O48GWgHK5LFMRl0SxWqtZqAGR/S70cuN+pIY2Uu8M9lqBLka+vb eTdwl+4Nf5RNZvF5HsJJp/JiAf+srVzDaMtRtc2jT7ZyvSHTBdlbPtLEXNbNIN/5OJpG C+VLrSYHUAcMzRde0L4LwiTyQQ1OX0+hufhN15AIjq6eVs5jSug0kY0v/MLtuya6jp7h L6BT3jXFIdKz65XocuGPztWtvg+zBwakFWNSpUNujclIZBgpKm5fWl+djD5l6v1rvBk5 C4Uw==
X-Received: by 10.66.250.164 with SMTP id zd4mr12568366pac.141.1371750160175; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.88.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C33DDF.4010104@matthew.at>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHCkQSLab2UuY_vWP3Gr8uh+++c9mDq5f4sCpuaK5aeLQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C1B907.8060508@hookflash.com> <CAJrXDUG06jvPvhfNwZ6Puzxj7E4XxELG_fU=S7B_c=tnC9eoNQ@mail.gmail.com> <78192824-A516-4376-8D4F-3B052ED47A0C@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUGOYc_Z_qWD7J0ZzVdfwYOacH_p5PjZEg5aP1LUetffMA@mail.gmail.com> <51C1F2E9.20405@hookflash.com> <51C1F5ED.9090308@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUFvL2U5jfKMvcTJ_Pi_Yj=t1LoZO7MZTJcZavuByw5b_Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1680@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUGZ=M4SsSCYLUjs36C7JcbRPj2jhreKJgqH51YR_8oc-Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3B1A1C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAJrXDUHuHY5p-A5WprPJ1jUbe4+9RYoJoRJFbpMFyEJKhB=FBQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C339EA.3050103@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUFFQc2z+1WVz21poOBy9QsrzcRZV53EHSn4mcLoSKh3YA@mail.gmail.com> <51C33DDF.4010104@matthew.at>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:41:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEU1TU5vWe=ZV0VG3B43ufBEzSABFAq4Gwn9RVvQC=TKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15fea304ac3404df9979e3
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlykoBhCyxSwzq4BKfsHzf8jFdD3Qu81FnysRiM+aO9xY0YV8bgsPnl3XalmZ3gP9qBsPM8GFQV+Zpyd88wkgVYvpqMcws1d8r7NHTtQ2/5p4wajZnYsRYQlAVo7ihfMJsBvP+t0Oe8Z3zawSesDi6ttOPXla22tA83lDjVBcHvF2U3kDt1ZQWY9MteDbZ2HGBzVVfz
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:42:41 -0000

OK,  in that case, let me rewrite what I wrote earlier:

If the WG decided "Let's throw out SDP and O/A in WebRTC 2.0", I'd be happy
to help work on a "CU NoPlan" in that context.  On the other hand, if the
WG said "Let's leave SDP and O/A, but allow JS to bypass it", I'd be happy
to work on that as well.  But I don't think CU-RTC is going to work well in
the latter, since the authors categorically reject any API that contains
O/A.

Does that accurately reflect the position of the authors of CU-RTCWeb?


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>wrote;wrote:

> On 6/20/2013 10:31 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>> Would you support incremental improvements that remove the offer/answer
>> state machine?  If so, I suggest you draft and propose such incremental
>> improvements.  I would love to see them.
>>
>>
> When we broke our proposal down into a bunch of different deltas, we got
> strong feedback at the W3C meeting in Lyon that nobody wanted to touch SDP
> as the API or Offer/Answer as something that is baked in to the browser.
>
> We've done a whole lot of work on our proposal *and* have running code
> that demonstrates it. We're not going to waste any more time writing
> additional proposals that will also be rejected by the folks who really
> love SDP + O/A.
>
> If someone else wants to take our work as a reference or starting point,
> great. If everyone wants to wait until the current API gets to W3C to see
> what formal objections we file, that's fine too.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>