Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Thu, 07 March 2013 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F0821F8C46 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:48:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.272
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r+DqAwW2xa4W for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C220121F8B27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [10.10.155.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3CE230005 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51390B3C.7010203@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:48:44 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <B9549E2E-6E68-4F34-A9C0-1F050285A70A@acmepacket.com> <CAJrXDUGSMfQ=SNrSxKVvay=4JUXHULy0cO2pRN9+iFJ23doWZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUHvcsuN6vXs8wku_aUrs-siHdn2wBDOJBgpgDPJySgdSg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMt7vaMnhcDD0-U7n6Hn-T=sHcGUGEV4=vAs8DVcoi-CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUGqxDxS5=_YnLOWVT6xOgXYuspGS5U2gXevc+PP2vLdHw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnZKVOgmh_5Qb2HeXuAL1BdxDc=U-=t1NfEEMC4DHMUew@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUEK9DCMfxOoq-8HPQwjTZrVvW-CEZJzte_gzyUs16hJuw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWZ0dDjfuUixL3nOpZ0LEs30TSOi1iFw7MW94qkD-JQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFy4u5B5AmG8xGN5SfNOe4HduJFunvQC_ht=5NOUYYjLA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxt0DmadedrS1fGT_gnGboxeFx9hhBoTGLkxk0vy01K0Kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxt0DmadedrS1fGT_gnGboxeFx9hhBoTGLkxk0vy01K0Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:48:44 -0000

On 3/7/2013 1:46 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> I do not think redefining session description is the best approach. 
> Having access to direct API methods that control send codecs, send 
> media types, resolution, etc  is easier to understand and to program. 
> I think even simply exposing the API from Voice and Video engines in 
> current WebRTC implementation would be a more usable API then the 
> current offer/answer SDP based one.

There is an existing proposal published by my employer which is along 
these lines. It might be helpful if the folks who are just now realizing 
what the issues are with dealing with both the complexity of the format 
of SDP as well as the embedded offer-answer semantics could review that 
and see how closely it matches their needs, rather than starting from a 
clean sheet of paper.

Matthew Kaufman