Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

"Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Sat, 20 July 2013 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 E30FE11E81D9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.497, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nQeSDhAiNbI5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0248.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087B911E81D4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail64-db9-R.bigfish.com (10.174.16.239) by DB9EHSOBE025.bigfish.com (10.174.14.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:42:11 +0000
Received: from mail64-db9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail64-db9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B41A800D8; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:42:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:autodiscover.service.exchange.microsoft.com; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: VS-21(zz9371Ic89bhc857hzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h1033IL17326ah18c673h1de097h1de096h8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail64-db9: domain of skype.net designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=matthew.kaufman@skype.net; helo=TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail64-db9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail64-db9 (MessageSwitch) id 1374291728875488_28573; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:42:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB9EHSMHS027.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.229]) by mail64-db9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5300B00049; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:42:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by DB9EHSMHS027.bigfish.com (10.174.14.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:42:08 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.194]) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.25]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:41:17 +0000
From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Thread-Topic: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)
Thread-Index: AQHOhKCbCeL+o/p+XES8EqmiU0dHnZlsvYcAgAACXYCAACvyIA==
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:41:16 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48423718322@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30CD1E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU401-EAS386F88B3FE140492B39B59693610@phx.gbl> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484213E41E7@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C50FDAD5-492C-4A83-AD6D-464242FB4A05@iii.ca> <CALiegfneUj=kzDjR_E1=S-bqAajaPUE3f_A2g8oGriFyPhamPA@mail.gmail.com> <51E96B5B.2050302@nostrum.com> <CABkgnnXa-eTzRHcLMnHam4c+1D9kkvRwi9=V-9P43+p+pKE_sw@mail.gmail.com> <644AB0EE-8889-4940-BA88-33EA653D44DC@iii.ca> <CAJrXDUGwpi2xZ1U3W0HX9SQ=VhuCB52ngfaSrPqO4_5SXQ=cYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUGwpi2xZ1U3W0HX9SQ=VhuCB52ngfaSrPqO4_5SXQ=cYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48423718322TK5EX14MBXC266r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: skype.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On babies and bathwater (was Re: Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)
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: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:42:19 -0000

Completely agree with Peter here. SDP-based systems shouldn’t be any more important than H.323 or Jingle based systems, or whatever else might be out there.

What I don’t understand is why, with such strong and valid feedback from so many people trying to use the API that exists at present, any WG member or chair would be suggesting to Peter that the resolution of this class of problems must be deferred until “after 1.0”.

If the chairs actually said that (and I can’t find it in any searches I’ve done of public lists), then I think we have a problem. If the developers feel like no matter what they say, they can’t make a positive impact on the specification that is produced by the WG, then we *definitely* have a problem.

Don’t we?

Matthew Kaufman

From: Peter Thatcher [mailto:pthatcher@google.com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 6:01 PM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: Martin Thomson; Adam Roach; Iñaki Baz Castillo; Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE); <rtcweb@ietf.org>;; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

The logic of how to talk to the video conferencing system doesn't need to be backed into the browser.  If the API provides enough control the JS, the web app can contain the logic to talk to the video conferencing system.

I know I'm going to start sounding like a broken record, but you brought up video conferencing systems as an example, so I will say it again: there are are video conferencing systems that don't use SDP for signalling.  For example, there are video conferencing systems that use Jingle for signalling.  Would I expect the logic of how to speak to that video conferencing system to be baked into the browser?  No, I think I'd prefer it to be built into a web app built on top of a good API.  Why should SDP-based video conferencing systems be treated special?