Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 22:17 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 69E3E11E8244 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 Aok+ujQ12GLh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B51A11E80E2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id y14so487805pdi.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:17:34 -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=OcAI/PjB71WtGUrKdI2l1jMQOxIwBLAI4NEmzob6l+U=; b=ekhGz9wZvLmMNnCSVfsTiR9wyXOi5QPCgkRIXALFqGnw3TwXaw5p15ViuWC8HVCWwS obzrvHb8EPulZOloxnEoUnhpF07De9BAiVi9fua6F2m4fLJZ/LVublgBFFV8KMxtGIiN wKqOD5hi2qJpfWLYTUmTKGH3UQS2KMWAvoH7PMl9Dr/zIEmLmySuZpbDaUFnU0mp70zb B2c5wSC02CvmPdakv662Rz7ljui9QD/im5qdPu8homRYC31fUlNiFVNTjKmSMQ7A4LhV ew6p03QDevJANlsnKQf70Es7P6bv2gHh9D5kjTOEwdWnGLg+OtaI4yN+omscsellZNQo jeMw==
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=OcAI/PjB71WtGUrKdI2l1jMQOxIwBLAI4NEmzob6l+U=; b=g9fXTV4f7LcEseu3Yk+ETQj4Oo3VulPoWJl1U+v8N6NFDWEUjfQ9lptMeCurgTcuww TPqtyxe486W7aUd9qRHKjiFt0m3KKTyOGWuEmEwglTFT/C0zCngP3YLMh2t90bQbRaxI hBUEDgsZ31CCyWT6dboL7Tch6HocSSX8RxAGcx1ds92WcC+5x6hJX6yiyTwNJZD+4UgS ZNTK2UBXmHbxdurJetu9NcPqvZaCaWym3cksx308S0Yyxyhv6JVWYcM8Co4CZrSTkQEJ aNSzRTRuUr6XCFRCpJzrQBgA06we33avVm1doHaGEzvbQt4wUH2D0PWEVsqq4YTTWHw2 aMrA==
X-Received: by 10.66.14.196 with SMTP id r4mr4412742pac.57.1372889854230; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.78.169 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMCGdY=LS0OG22aFdhwU2m_-H4_sHb15SAYBT7e2_4RLQ@mail.gmail.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> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMCGdY=LS0OG22aFdhwU2m_-H4_sHb15SAYBT7e2_4RLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:16:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUH9q6zbjQ_xFRuWXmkb_aqnmv+Pn8SSQwrXzUV17d3t9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51f99e513f0f804e0a2d43d
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlBNmHJgrnp2xVTyzHkxaaDIa81VRR2dLzxvifQZe7FI5Noq18VNEWCgOrmjcntCOfOlWu8d32BBtHt3oESOz9+SSbwQrLUsn50B1ovaJ542cvTwNVOYQBPTs1gUjN8YN9fZP18IGPl/3D1rHZ+e/xXukvPSsg/ApkLqfGd2OyFBugotEmdszc/4sye/xFuaduzbj3S
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:17:35 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:
>
>> So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with Jingle is
>> just impossible. And this is supposed to be the API proposed to W3C...
>>
> Who said anything about impossible? It's a mechanical transformation
> (see: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html).
>
> Anyway, it's not like this feature is a surprise to anyone--well at
> least anyone who was paying attention--it's been a feature of the
> specification since before the WG was even formed. As I said
> earlier, it was in the original WHATWG spec that Ian Hickson
> wrote.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
There are lots of application developers who weren't around back then, so
it's not reasonable to expect them to have been paying attention back then.
 Many are very new to this, and there are lots of surprises for them.

And as many developers are now trying to use the WebRTC API, we're now
getting feedback on how well it works for them.  The point of my original
post in this thread was to summarize the feedback we've received so far for
the WG.

It wasn't my intention to re-start arguments between one camp and another.
  But your clarification of "Camp #0" was helpful, so thank for you for
that.