W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:54:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXa-eTzRHcLMnHam4c+1D9kkvRwi9=V-9P43+p+pKE_sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: IƱaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 19 July 2013 09:37, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> [2] For the uninitiated, "comment 22" was a shorthand developed at last
> year's TPAC for the sentiment "SDP offer/answer is hard".

No quite, it's shorthand for "there is a proposal that has been
submitted in which the problem in question does not need to be
solved", with one of two options: "either the problem has been
solved", or "the problem simply does not need to be solved (by us,
with a standard)".

I reject your thesis for one simple reason: scope.

As it turns out, "does not need to be solved" doesn't go to 100%.
Some problems are deferred to applications.  Intentionally.  Because
a) they are better at that than we are, clearly, and b) they don't
necessarily want our crappy solutions.

How long have we talked about BUNDLE?  How long do you think that it
would take someone with a functioning RTP library to build something
that multiplexes and demultiplexes RTP streams?

Negotiation is a hole.  A vast, soul-sucking, waste of time.
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 16:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC