Re: [rtcweb] Proposed protocol change to JSEP: Omitting track ID

Adam Roach <> Fri, 19 October 2018 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7257130F8D for <>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1dpW8j6FD5f for <>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A8E130F61 for <>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 07:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9JEwOS3048538 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:58:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:58:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed protocol change to JSEP: Omitting track ID
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:58:44 -0000

[as responsible AD]

On 10/19/18 6:35 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I'd like to have the WG declare consensus that we don't want
> incompatible protocol changes to JSEP after IESG approval.
> (If we want to discuss the proposed protocol change on its merits, we
> can do that too, but I'm very much not in agreement with doing this
> change in this way. Breaking changes belong in -bis documents, not in
> the RFC Editor queue.)

Without speaking to the specific changes your cite, I'll note that the 
current plan is to take JSEP through IETF last call and IESG approval 
again. In fairness, this conclusion was easy to miss, as it was buried 
in a pretty long thread: