Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 18 June 2013 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8928921F95EF for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kdfijM0Y9Dbv for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54DC21F8E98 for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j13so3085032wgh.24 for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZugIHO62YCOT1O1XrJpDpNnX29eZRd2b+I5SpXkpHqI=; b=BwU7jaQAWuYJRfRpcDN4QP06Y+wkH5x6qe+tBsPAxqESBDW73duOhl3Mohk8LEKxbr SOmZjsvC1pcI9ArzT8Z/mJWINsya6Yvk5w6SR3LboG37mothFEtBlzcvuhRkpP2l7vw8 Cv3Z4JBGR6lhIfslAPLHvjSdP5FsyQptkE4psw712QfMqeagIEsKOgOEr76zktnH6TVb +TDwxqi6ksqOrmiCEs8D2KRbuctRwiYJ9F61ryv681+3YfivYbezHwGURzT1AR4tCdMn zrq/Zw0PynR2WornGGX1FjbW/El2nEUxBVL2UNY9Af1SPlrC4kFuVnpapHvD3L5uyHgO kuNw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id r3mr1697802wjw.5.1371528087859; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:01:27 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Robin Raymond <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfd091879f92004df65c4d9
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:01:29 -0000

On 17 June 2013 19:54, Robin Raymond <> wrote:

> On a side note, I agree that SDP should go (and quickly) but it's not the
> format that's the problem. Granted, it is obtuse. But it's not just that;
> it's a monolithic do-everything offer/answer model that offers very little
> control and the API to control the browser's RTC is effectively via
> manipulation of the SDP. Yuck! Even if it were fancier and prettier JSON,
> it would still be an ugly do-everything monolithic object with a sketchy
> offer/answer model that is brittle and offered very little real-scenario
> controls for those whom need it. It's absolutely horrible and is in good
> need of quick deprecation.

I think that this sums up my views on the subject.  Offer/answer is at the
heart of this.  SDP is just the ugly wrapper that attracts all the heat.
SDP isn't so bad if you are doing SAP.  Of course, once you drop O/A, then
you have to build something else.

I made a start at that, but I caution, this approach was soundly rejected:

No matter how right you are, the political reality is that it's not cool to
raise comment 22.