Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal

Cullen Jennings <> Mon, 03 June 2013 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988D021E805A for <>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQztEXoxZ2cc for <>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF72B1F0D1D for <>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFB5E22E25B; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:42:46 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:42:43 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Emil Ivov <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:53:16 -0000

I just wanted to quickly clear up I was not treating any of your ideas as a joke at all. Inline ….

On May 31, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Emil Ivov <> wrote:

>> The idea of exposing a low level API to the media stack and having
>> the all proposing to do FEC, RTX, SDP processing ect has been
>> discussed many times across the various working groups. It' jokingly
>> refereed to as comment 22 at this point.
> I appreciate you are trying to turn this into a joke (which I think is a pity provide your chairing role in this working group), but abandoning SDP really isn't what this is about. You might have noticed text about this as early as the abstract:

I am not treating any of this as a joke at all - I am trying to understand what your roposal is. The "Comment 22" jokingly refers to some comments made by Mathew at WebRTC and nothing really to do this given that, as you say, this still uses Offer / Answer 

>  This document does not question the use of SDP and the Offer/Answer
>  model or the value they have in terms of interoperability with legacy
>  or other non-WebRTC devices.