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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 17:32 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 BD7DD11E811E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.787
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 pe4ZJ3wzgPFx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CF421F9A05 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 14so8729407pdj.40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:32:37 -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=9WLuBTRuBUsHt7celv30OZ0xH9Zz2VNAqw+Rg6atRTA=; b=R08mqqKnLSniQxl/Wl1n7sdJcyifdrx/72Hpv+5iPmwlrJFmFRpbYRdRZaa93A5oy2 eGAgY4sTvzaGdRILM9lQQXVyocEpaLiWjKqeAS5RgmmNFPXLF71zzt9epjwuQyEgrFZG IAJKWKzbGV6Qlwt3L6+B48YWAFcTqAJ4Ry4OeHEg9P84nS8g8UkM82j2u8xJJ7cVLU8Q Idp1d7b4d1oj4zUf5SGIUB4d/3u4hA7/Vx8cMX5acpabLqCbUNbZVvd4ApmLdlrzUToU ilAMZRG3TX5sbVyT7PmcGTYix1oeh6+AZ0NttzEx4yhF2KP2YngoLoWncUxVbGEWCFUz fAIg==
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=9WLuBTRuBUsHt7celv30OZ0xH9Zz2VNAqw+Rg6atRTA=; b=DNrJCpj0uEMebuPQagek2q2LhZpDCRq+IIje7ALXScWOskZqwJQi22a1mTF2FBeoZE H0P+4BsRnHg3CFD96zpGM7QjdWeFzGqRddPlTeNvy7b9WyFeMBEtHo9Yz8DWwEocqp2M dmPi7bGEJq7Y3Oeia1YPdzp1WQbMRhnRF+ZhplAvKbbt3lVT114QidTGEaAc9Td7RFv2 6VTbuyunlN+alRGewQq+kIl/9xgngdi+uL8NKjayzcWe/W/ZFtqY5qMxkhJHFUsjsvKM x7A0oYdgdS0PmDm6Z/rx+xDrQ1N3UYgS5GvfKjgE8jUQWsccpm1OH9FlC57eWiAvllw5 OGkA==
X-Received: by 10.66.217.195 with SMTP id pa3mr44639444pac.120.1373650357484; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.78.169 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30D110@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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> <CAJrXDUHOZf21aXgQMrdjTV8Fok+fVp-2SuhTra0JGy0Jq=Wi0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp8n2mNdNiXCCNUdEvKgAsh_pPn=jNs+56VCg4PMKbUmOGztQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUZMAuDocwZWXn9a+Xj3kkcX0uyRgjDmy-hQxpTDKWj3w@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30CF49@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfmiRsOXL97XDzMRQ_Vvbk9zaDBBvCPxr_=zbDJbnMZ_8A@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30D110@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:31:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGNCrN5kgmrd4YK=7FtDd-LwA54aykJUP9_3sGSB42TkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_H=C3=A5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d438c9a998404e153e5d7
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHjji9ij5ts7riDnVE0RdMN9jCvdOmnS33RXDkF631kpjaYPdIHIKz9q8oNey0pJcyk+Sso4YfFfsXHU4KxhtA+xaP+2Zn9Je/QEUgyRpESk1pQraxBuWyxymxdidt3lFsI3AjZMW1rqjmDSbVMPbKJrONJJmXVsyjjWkzJloijV45NXqZyMlNKVtF2S+xKcZ5coY7
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:32:38 -0000

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>; wrote:

> On 2013-07-09 12:18, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > 2013/7/9 Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>;:
> >> I want to be very clear and careful on what I say. So I am repeating:
> >>
> >> * My comment that I think Eric is right in that there is consensus on
> >> providing APIs that allow most use-cases to be met without SDP mangling
> >> is meant only in that context: SDP O/A is kept (and PeerConnection more
> >> or less as is and so on).
> >
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > You insist that "there is consensus on keeping SDP O/A but providing a
> > better API".
>
> I must be expressing myself quite badly, because the message seems not
> to get through.
>
> * I think we have consensus on adding API that allows most use-cases to
> be met without SDP mangling (given that SDP O/A is kept naturally)
>
> * We discussed last year an alternative API that did not use SDP at all
> (and did not use PeerConnection). The decision at that time was to
> continue developing the API based on PeerConnection and SDP O/A.
>
> Have not stated anything more than that.
>

Thank you for clarifying, Stefan.  It's often very difficult for those of
us who weren't there to understand what was consensus, and what wasn't, and
what was decided and what was decided and what wasn't.  It seems that if
you ask 10 people, you get 10 different answers.


In other words, it's hard to see much consensus on what we have consensus
on.


So thank you for your clarifications.  It's probably not a very fun job for
you :).   Along with that, I have two more questions for you:


1.  You said we have consensus on adding API that allows most use-cases to
be met without SDP mangling.  Since that point in time has there been in
any progress in adding such APIs?  Can you give me a rough feel for how
much time has passed, how many proposals have been made, how many have been
accepted, and how many have been implemented?  I think it's great that
we'll do this "someday", but I'd like to get a feel for how far away
"someday" is.  Thanks in advance.

2.  You said we have consensus against an alternative API.  Was that
consensus against any additions to the API that would allow JS to bypass
SDP, or was that a consensus against just that particular alternative API?
 I'd like to get a feel for how many people voted for "no; let's not go
down that specific road" vs. "no; we cannot go on any road but this one".
I think there's a big difference between the two.  Thanks again in advance.


By the way, Ted asked us to move discussions about the API to
public-webrtc, so should we do that now?



> Stefan
>
> > Given current discussions IMHO it is clear there is not
> > such a consensus (not at all). Or may be you are just talking about
> > two years ago in some IETF meeting (if so I'm sorry).
> >
> > Please review the results in
> >
> https://docs.google.com/a/aliax.net/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuaKXw3SkHMSdHlZdV9RN0xSWFhybVl4anJLRkVPV0E#gid=1
> >
> >    Bad for advanced stuff: 94%
> >    OK for 1.0: 40%
> >
> > IMHO such a result indicates all but "let's keep SDP O/A and improve a
> > bit the API" (I mean now, in July 2013).
> >
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Iñaki Baz Castillo
> > <ibc@aliax.net>;
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>