Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 312C611E80E0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.710, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 7-fPnIZjdBtC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A27121F9AC9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j10so445943qcx.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=F00q1QNJ0VolPGFmz4P2+M8N8DhFo3IunX5DmlOgnTk=; b=ppltA0Wf6wPTglbezSa6Vu/KMH456rgmlr0WZH840pS7mFOu63i8NTtBAE0cswOlpS RK7upzNdd2qXgemRYP0Omno5xVjsNQ76U/lMiXxqA8CGRq/3hB3+IwcdIzz8i3Pg+k/M Q4PmWFiyogcDHpy8fefmGKzZoYBY3HmTXJHvRIuNZs7uBqbkTg7AgXcBi401J3cCDLZP 8W2bu55YXS1mDAX680a3uJrWskUJ2k4uSacMhY0YMxZ0na12J7w7yDPe0ymI3AmjUswA qpyduZGc1bA/35oTL30ZGXop/DzjHSkckv73N84fKcvs1wemInOKTeUlomp3zcddSHMh JJLA==
X-Received: by 10.224.174.6 with SMTP id r6mr6219180qaz.87.1372890089462; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.48.234 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUH9q6zbjQ_xFRuWXmkb_aqnmv+Pn8SSQwrXzUV17d3t9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMCGdY=LS0OG22aFdhwU2m_-H4_sHb15SAYBT7e2_4RLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUH9q6zbjQ_xFRuWXmkb_aqnmv+Pn8SSQwrXzUV17d3t9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:20:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP_r=3krG=Seb+jYj0VJyR-yOzH8EU9Vp8p83kMZAx6jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b397dd205192c6d04e0a2e24a
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm11AoPwO6We4pUpYzLSnR9gkaQ77DmsZkfhiZE459OzyUGevZ1MxYH2K1lL6Ghxe/OC75s
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:21:42 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>; wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:
>>
>>> So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with Jingle is
>>> just impossible. And this is supposed to be the API proposed to W3C...
>>>
>> Who said anything about impossible? It's a mechanical transformation
>> (see: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html).
>>
>> Anyway, it's not like this feature is a surprise to anyone--well at
>> least anyone who was paying attention--it's been a feature of the
>> specification since before the WG was even formed. As I said
>> earlier, it was in the original WHATWG spec that Ian Hickson
>> wrote.
>>
>>

>  There are lots of application developers who weren't around back then,
> so it's not reasonable to expect them to have been paying attention back
> then.  Many are very new to this, and there are lots of surprises for them.
>

The person I was responding to has posts on this mailing list going back as
far as September 2011.

-Ekr