Re: TPAC f2f: start building agenda

That was my hope. Maybe we can help set the parameters for the discussion
in the following week.
On Oct 17, 2012 3:09 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> On 10/17/2012 01:55 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> On 16 October 2012 15:40, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2012, at 9:18 , Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to see some time spent on the plan for addressing the
>>>> open SDP issue.
>>>>
>>> Could say exactly what the open issue is?
>>>
>> Specifically:
>> [...]  We also recognize that the exact use of
>> SDP and SDP features is currently underspecified, making it difficult to
>> build interoperating UA implementations, and, for the interop to legacy
>> cases, difficult to write applications that modify the SDPs to enable
>> interop. This is something that must be sorted out, the main
>> responsibility for this lies with the IETF rtcweb WG.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**0098.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0098.html>
>>
>>  Since this meeting is of the WEBRTC WG, I think the main thing we want
> to say is what functions we want the SDP negotiation to accomplish, and how
> we think SDP requirements for negotiation get reflected at the API level.
>
> The fact that we've got a large overlap of participation with RTCWEB means
> that we should at least be able to have an informed discussion of this
> topic, but the actual SDP syntax and semantics issues need to be dealt with
> in the IETF, I think.
>
>                 Harald
>
>
>