Re: [rtcweb] XSF Jingle Special Interest Group.

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2013/7/22 Ralph Meijer <[e-mail]>:
> Hi Iñaki,
>
> I have been following the recent discussions for a while now, and think I
> understand the various stand points, including yours.
>
> As I mentioned in my announcement, mapping SDP to Jingle's negotiation
> parameters is indeed one of the concerns we are going to look into.
> Philipp's work on his WebRTC plugin for Strophe.js [1], which uses Jingle
> signalling, has shown that it indeed takes quite some effort to map and
> mangle SDP to get things going. The spreadsheet questionnaire that Peter
> Thatcher asked people to fill in (thanks!) also has several comments to that
> effect. During our discussions on the Jingle mailing list and the meeting
> last week, more of such comments were made.
>
> I want to stress, again, that Jingle's negotiation parameters should not be
> referred to as a flavor of SDP expressed in XML. This is misleading, as it
> is not managed by MMUSIC, and actually weakens your point of not wanting SDP
> as an API surface. I can understand that looking at the current
> specification could give that impression, though. The Jingle examples are
> currently interleaved by SDP examples to show the mapping, and we are
> looking into making the distinction clearer, maybe even as a document
> separate from this one.

Thanks for the clarification. So Jingle's session description is not
just a plain-to-XML mapping of a common SDP. Good to know.

However, wouldn't you prefer to have a pure JS Object with all the
media and transport information you require to build your Jingle
XML-SDP instead of having to parse a plain SDP string blob?

Thanks a lot.


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>