Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: RTP demux algorithms

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>>>I still question why the low-level RTP demuxing shall be described in
>>>> JSEP, instead of e.g., BUNDLE.
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind that all BUNDLE implementations may not implement JSEP,
>>>> but I
>>>> still think we want the RTP demuxing to be done in the same way?
>>>
>>> Does BUNDLE say how to handle RID?
>> 
>> No. Cullen wanted more text, though, but I am not sure whether that
>> covered RID.
>> 
>>> Seriously, please get BUNDLE out the door and don't tangle it in any
>>> more new stuff.
>> 
>> If that was meant to me, I will pretend I didn¹t see itŠ
>
>It's actually a grave concern of mine - more addressed to the chairs of
>the relevant WGs than to anyone else.
>
>Any open document is a magnet for new functionality, and any new
>functionality delays the document's publication.
>
>The bundle document, with its associated changes in registration
>procedures for SDP attributes (the mux category), needs to be seen as
>stable. RFC publication is the best way to make it so.
>
>Datatracker says we've been working on this document since 2011. It's
>now at version -32, and was in state "Minor updates needed to address
>WGLC comments" in May.
>
>If we can segregate new requests for functionality into other documents,
>I think that is a win.

It’s not the addition of new functionality that has caused the delay.
Whenever we’ve decided to add some new functionality, the process has been
rather fast and smooth - thanks to everyone who have provided text and
input.

What is causing the delay is the never-ending requests for editorial
changes (many of which are not done using a simple search/replace - they
often require wider re-writing/structuring). Whenever person X has
provided comments, and I’ve updated the document, person Y wants something
else. It would have been much easier if person Y would have given his/her
comments when person X did, and then we could have discussed and tried to
find something that both X and Y are happy with.

Note that I AM very thankful that people DO review the document (we need
more of that), and most of the comments are really good, but by using the
current “process” we’ll never be ready. Anyway, I think that discussion
belongs to MMUSIC.

Regards,

Christer