Re: What is missing for building "real" services?

On 01/10/2014 11:36 AM, Tim Panton new wrote:
>
> On 6 Jan 2014, at 10:01, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2014 10:55 AM, Tim Panton new wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 Jan 2014, at 09:45, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
>>> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On quite a few of these, coming up with specific proposals that
>>>> explain:
>>>>
>>>> - Why it's needed
>>>> - How it could be done
>>>>
>>>> would greatly increase the chances of something happening.
>>>> It's very nice to ask that "someone do something"; it's much better
>>>> to actually do it.
>>>>
>>>> On 01/05/2014 09:59 PM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have reminded myself another issues regarding specially to
>>>>> DataChannels:
>>>>>
>>>>> * It is too much cumbersome to create a DataChannel-only
>>>>> connection and there are too much concepts related to it: SDP,
>>>>> offer, answer, PeerConnection objects, signaling channel (common
>>>>> sense says, if you already has a channel to comunicate between
>>>>> both peers, why you would create another one)... Too much
>>>>> complicated and anti-intuitive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On this aspect, however, I think the answer is "live with it". It's
>>>> just the way the design is.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps 'live with it 'till 2.0' - I can't imagine the SDP mess
>>> will survive a major revision of the spec - it is just too clumsy.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to the proposals being worked out in the ORCA
>> group maturing to the point where it's possible to prove that they
>> can be used to communicate with 1.0 implementations (or even emulate
>> their API).
>
> That's un-provable. The SDP subset offered by 1.0 is (and will remain)
> sufficiently vague that it will never be possible to be sure that 
> you've handled all the possible variants. That means that ORCA can at
> best demonstrate interop with current 1.0 implementations. 
> If you are expecting rigour from a system involving SDP you are
> setting them up to fail.

Sure. I'm talking about demonstrating the ability to communicate in at
least one case, not about proving that it's possible in every case.

Until we have that first demo of interoperability, we don't have
interoperability.

(Old saw of the week: "There are no portable programs. There are just
programs that have been ported.")



-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.