Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option

Peter Thatcher <> Thu, 20 June 2013 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D311421F93E0 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mFBnT1cCOlO0 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA19421F9007 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ro2so6455692pbb.27 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=EFpMae+ZY9tvGegkHa2Q5SVGo0H2o0cSsCn3hcbjsr8=; b=S2Q14Cu1kFZSdhCzkWM6o50h1KxB3o7vANXFD9Bl66PbkQLQYxoZ1S+rPH6lAR3Qts ADjbL0VRwgWyon3q/6dUgh7RoO/6wtbI1s2N+tYcyM/ZlOhM9rHGxDPib1iMugxabFGU xE/MRo/VACCVPICRxdii1gcPBadzfe80kKhsgxaQQm1GEBJjmz139tG6CxDkgcXs66A8 3TFZUKs/j39Zb/YNj6Pkup/GIORcBNl4tYf4du/x17yMjjkFY7YL4ka+LyBzZ7D+ElFt ex6Xi6zyWaPB6/4/I6bqM6Vq6kUSvkd347JTFuui7Xb7g5pL5sSdiYfS4isNIuo8AEAb iKsg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=EFpMae+ZY9tvGegkHa2Q5SVGo0H2o0cSsCn3hcbjsr8=; b=SWNbboPLFnN6hYlKb/XjpGOJ3GSaOsPcFkCsbRjSYeAxP2bviExeQjOvj/fW/xVIia XnwseJ3ItSUSyF+4OgSwsEyNIr/LCiI2MYQl4J6ZD6bgoPgmZg3QNSSv7ASTOQ3zF+L0 rMlxrlZwfPtFNZdF5LZSzbggBgeHIFgCJ3+rK6dUWtYkkQ9/mjGKDNxMJPg/dqOyKp0G 9f3xOu0i10cWFadg53CiuBOsSSWVYC2/+Exac25X9jCmoXvemFZz7oikA7GZIFPKphGw wfgPkUk6xPhKKIv0TX0ZD7Vi8F0vXiif9IcsGC9WLbrLALcjA32EatfoXyG2EHbNYPEC KPwA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id vw7mr2169722pac.70.1371749024357; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Peter Thatcher <>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:23:04 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Robin Raymond <>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="047d7b15a54d5186b404df9935aa"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlKJj99ChPTfQo9ErQd2ej0u2TW30THOOjKs28AMI4OxpVDeOy/L9p5uNGRTkoXertcPZcV4etA6TCUJVHjHer47NKqZ6+0OuP+Dj4knBQQ+UpCmzNjxpevloEK0bXEET64hSxLzxbPNCzdEvBjhVWUEzQAF+lqmJPu0g5N17nCjuXr7dS+5XO5/gYGXJgYlWzVPCMb
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:23:48 -0000

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Robin Raymond <> wrote:

> You are right. It's time for those of us who are begging for an
> alternative to SDP to come up with an alternative.
> I'm willing to lead such an effort. I just ask others to please have an
> open mind. I absolutely do understand the need for the SIP world to have an
> easy API they can use for SDP. But I also know SDP as an primary surface
> API is making anything beyond a basic calling a requirement to mangle SDP
> as a mechanism to control and obtain properties from an underlying
> media/RTC engine.
> I think there is a really good compromise. That is to provide an API that
> will adhere to the security policies needed (e.g. respects the need to
> require ICE establishment), but provides a simple shim API similar to what
> people already have with SDP but not be required to use for those who want
> to a more direct approach.
> There's no need to "burn" the entire thing to the ground and start over
> and that is _not_ my desire.
> This WebRTC thing must succeed but I can't imagine the W3C accepting our
> proposal for mangling SDP as a primary surface API to do common edge case
> scenarios. WIth an alternative proposal that satisfies both camps, I
> believe they could accept and we can stop the anit-SDP crowd grumblings
> once and for all.
> To that end I'm going to write two drafts:
> draft-raymond-webrtc-js-object-api-rationale-00 (to explain requirements,
> philosophy, methodology, benefits/pitfalls, use cases that are
> difficult/impossible with SDP+O/A)
> draft-raymond-webrtc-js-object-api-00 (to outline the actual API)
> Plus, I'll produce a shim on top of whatever API that will allow the SDP
> folks to have a simple SDP based API similar to what exists now but is
> entirely written in JavaScript to prove that this can be done.
How are you going to test that shim without a working implementation of the
clean API?

One thing you could do is build a shim of clean API -> SDP.  Then, you'd
have two shims which would make a fun combination (SDP -> clean API -> SDP)
and you're prove that SDP munging and the clean API are equivalent in power.

Or you could fork Chrome or Firefox.

Either way, you have a lot of work ahead of you.  Best of luck.

>  I really want a viable solutions for all interested in having a really
> good proposal API to ultimately become accepted by the W3C.
> If anyone has anything I should add to either of these drafts or wants to
> be involved, please contact me.
> -Robin
>   Christer Holmberg <>
>  20 June, 2013 12:55 AM
> Hi,
> At the virtual interim, the Plan A and Plan B folks were asked to sit down
> and try to come up with a compromise "Plan AB" solution.
> I guess it would be good if people that don't want SDP could try to come
> up with a compromise "CU No Plan" solution :)
> Regards,
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list