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