Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 08 March 2013 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 5D7D721F85BF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:49:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.758
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 T5QN7JUV4OqP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f50.google.com (mail-qe0-f50.google.com [209.85.128.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9958B21F8514 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k5so1025826qej.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:49:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1JtawpQoiiNziH3xqNLoZWwq5aDU2e0xKXGzdeRLJH4=; b=z9bKnvZvEGtzkMCiF8uK+JJcxUwZk8L2M86ouyIselt8qs+yP8tY7rs74Iu2TJutOB Y6INcS15FkIDoHAp7uHC7ZhItBr9rgwdkNX70zokLmFBSudhoTuwwglv2Aw1JxUSx2Qi k4le63pyMjxVo0KxSn6xJpnUK8ky0VgRyCIr3rGlgkiuTVvfvjofOanXKbhxSDurBi0z Rqsmf9L+GjXOo9p+CVsQMnfofi9//FT9BhnEYKMIiFSB4WrKANqTBfRzNax7uXFX97Cs n/NhDbwSLx2pCCSKEENny4dlaQkncHeqMGEFmlSTpjAFXpdr+GD5VshStd3umvqLng2Q JPiA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.87.40 with SMTP id u8mr3872192qez.62.1362754181173; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.24.130 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:49:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAtTOAw4hy5yRhdgW5=Ca9a9LjX9paZrR=+ABJGnJAU=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAtTOAw4hy5yRhdgW5=Ca9a9LjX9paZrR=+ABJGnJAU=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:49:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN75PncyA1euiZ-9rr=parAGnM43oAL0JQHykxnJ+3YWww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
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, 08 Mar 2013 14:49:42 -0000
As an individual that's also a chair, I truly do understand your pain. I realize that a change this late in the game is not at all a good thing. I also realize the impact this might have on folks whose products are very entrenched in SDP (including my own employer). But, this seems very much to be a pay now or pay later situation. I have 100% confidence that this energetic and intelligent group of folks can come up with a protocol spec that relies on SDP - we have shown over and over that we can eventually make decisions when there are strong proponents with different approaches. I don't debate that at all, but I am concerned about interoperability issues and the fragility of SDP. This is not at all a new sort of problem - it's a pattern that exists very often in product development. In my experience, doing something that seems a little more novel and disruptive can be done more quickly than trying to work with existing code/architectures that are being pushed well beyond their limits (based upon original design intent). I've seen this time and again in developing products. We also have a number of situations in IETF where we have been determined to complete something based upon a decision that was made and we have successfully completed protocol documents in these cases. However, we have a number of these cases where those documents just get put on a shelf. Best Regards, Mary On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Howdy, > > For any working group to be able to make consistent progress, it must > be able to rely on decisions that have already been taken to remain > stable in the absence of new technical issues. Re-raising old > issues without new information does not help move the work forward, > and, as tempting as it may be for those who raised it the initial > times, nor does a chorus of "I thought that all along". > > For the specific question in the thread entitled "Proposed Plan for > Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP", I believe every > point in the thread has been raised before. SDP has been unlovely and > arcane for many years, so this is not new news. Despite that old > news, we have run consensus calls on this topic in both the IETF and > the W3C and agreed to use both it and offer/answer. > > May I politely suggest we finish that work *before* we examine the > need and feasibility of an addtional, potentially lower-layer approach > to this? Finishing the work before us does not close off all related > work for all time, but failure to produce something viable soon likely > will. > > I'm not sure what hat to wear for this message, so assume a "grumpy > old timer" porkpie, size 7 and 3/8ths. > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB (U… Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB Martin Thomson