Re: [Bug 20810] SDP inadequately defined

The API generates and consumes a huge string. Because that string *is* the API, the contents of that string must be specified sufficiently that I can create and understand a compatible one. The current chain of references is not sufficient to do that... Even if I refer to drafts.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)

On Oct 28, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 29 Oct 2014 07:10, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net<mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net>> wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely thrilled about all the bugs being closed as "this is the IETF's problem", but this one in particular is an issue. There is currently NO chain of normative references, RFC or otherwise, which when used as a specification results in SDP that is compatible with any SDP generated or consumed by any WEBRTC implementation. This is a bug *with the W3C specification* until such time as we reach the point where the normative references are sufficient to create an interoperable implementation without reference to third party source code.

Is this a quality of implementation issue or a api definition issue?

Isn't the next version of the spec supposed to abstract away the sdp surface? In your opinion, does ORTC have the right api to resolve this issue?

Silvia.

> Matthew Kaufman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> [mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:41 AM
> To: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
> Subject: [Bug 20810] SDP inadequately defined
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20810
>
> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
>          Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX
>
> --- Comment #3 from Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> --- Closing as "this is the IETF's problem".
>
> Note: There is no requirement that Candidate Recommendations' normative references have to be published as RFCs.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.