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

Robin Raymond <> Fri, 21 June 2013 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57CA21F9CF6 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.209
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.389, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1rAwmmVBO-Ve for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E3A21F9D0A for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 9so19284493iec.5 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=NNImlpzmF4srfOlexzdDV0qWgAtxzWSkf9ol9Nsvfks=; b=O68vu0CvgE13/IxZO0/OoDfN8mNpAFue4tk1C5s1+9QrkAUBH50JZgvV7I8mmqXIyB DIwFWa4R16m3V+L7MlOGUsJvym30aZ40Y/5+tMg+BsT4LQtGsNPzdd2ppIT1KY8Nr9Et XQm/AuKw048uOg4RmVm51GEk0Ka2nrY6z/sIzR45K4uJly2aFIqd87fq1y+7c8iaVJLy J8BF/Hx/Azi5eBHulM7sRdOscvhxwViRstW13GcwLHDfZ5iSiTauw6zS1m63AZB7VEKh oq9Tb8F5G7Z/LZlnPzxdei/Ul3Th6a7bYqUh0qfMiipnPnBTO3OKBb3RAiJGYs00/GVw Gtqg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p2mr3085586icc.70.1371836239263; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Robins-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ir8sm6047772igb.6.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:37:14 -0400
From: Robin Raymond <>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>, <> <4337C1D6-5D1E-4316-A96B-E6FBA2E647E7@siemens-enterprise.c om>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030400070603000708070308"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7gjeEPC8QLViAOv3PaEqeXN6QpC92LcuthUzsdsFRqu2v7an8SXQ1Xb5jlX6OS0Dd1LGt
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:37:40 -0000

To me the issue is not easy of use but compatibility, as what is 
produced should increase compatibility not decrease it. That's one of 
the major drawbacks of SDP with offer/answer as I've described numerous 
times -- it increases incompatibility rather than decreases it.

I too want to see an API where people don't need to understand a complex 
mechanism to be able to produce a suitable application. Unfortunately, 
the current SDP approach all too often requires learning SDP by 
JavaScript developers to perform normal edge case scenarios (e.g. 
putting media on/off hold). That's simply not acceptable in my mind.

That's why I will drafting up an alternative approach which can have a 
reasonable non-SDP based API without offer/answer but I will provide a 
JavaScript shim on top that will provide the current "simple" approach, 
including being able perform offer/answer using SDP (as some people 
prefer). This should more than adequately satisfy the charter's limited 
1.0 goals and responsibilities and give the non-SDP people a basis for 
moving forward where they can feel comfortable will satisfy their needs 
as well.


> Hutton, Andrew <>
> 21 June, 2013 12:52 PM
> Now this is getting ridiculous.
> You do know that one of the goals is to build an API that web 
> developers without knowledge of IETF protocols can use to build apps. 
> I was only using this as an example where this has been achieved.
> I also think you know that there are many apps out there already which 
> are much more than high school projects.
> I believe we are simply making life difficult by trying to do too much 
> at once  and we need to rethink what is really needed and deliver on 
> what we have said we we will deliver please read the charter.
> Andy