Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 61DDA21F9E6E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 MLvPsrJU-nVm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFF321F9EAD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id A71E21EB851E; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.174]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:00:15 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .
Thread-Index: AQHObEJByY7ZqkO+CkSPIPqSfmn6rpk+jpkggAASMACAACdKMP//6ASAgAAkEHA=
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:00:14 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2432@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2150@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAD5OKxv9-76WM8B=HOD=rrpwcgajhnAv9nqsvgpU=KVU2StgoQ@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D233F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CALiegfm4phxw9Dwg9wQ98GT0Zhx6JGf+xa_pAHn9+O-9KqxZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfm4phxw9Dwg9wQ98GT0Zhx6JGf+xa_pAHn9+O-9KqxZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Priorities - Was: Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened .
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:00:22 -0000

On: 20 June 2013 17:42 Iñaki Baz Castillo Wrote:
> 
> So the only arguments pro-SDP are "it was debated many times" (it
> seems it does not matter than many people that agreed then have
> changed their mind after getting experience), "let do something simple
> for now based on SDP, something that allows a simple PSTN call" (so
> SDP will be here forever and any future WebRTC app will have to deal
> with SDP nightmares and will be subject to its O/A model, forever and
> ever).
> 

No it is not the only argument it is just stating the fact that we had the debate previously in which the arguments were made and the balance was in favor of SDP.  As I said I don't really want to reopen all the old arguments.

I am saying that people are getting frustrated and considering a change because we are concentrating on extending SDP rather than keeping things simple and focusing on the current deliverables as specified in the charter.  If we had not gone this route then I think we would have more success and people would not have become so frustrated.

Changing fundamental decisions at a late stage is not a major deal and comes with great costs so needs even more justification than the original decision did.

Andy.