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

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
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 23A1721F8AA6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VibNgimhuLJ5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9003B21F8A6E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ge1so816464lbb.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:10:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=PUpmwfR83dSB+dCuwa5t8mYdy0R5velRGbEohgt1T10=; b=nyLS0bbpzdmLqas+qG+IDWuFgSSJ0pH9WlWsYD1TUCvSmAGV9S2Yy8ESm1XGReqEJ5 AJxwnbNrJv7YdIjWVQ1qu4CAgDZe2evKUwdBpKxtcm11l7NjAYw5eWVlKkfZZmzJkcyQ XYfEJQXSCiFqL8OYJOsdVbOkEUX4pYJ0lWu6qhVLh0MfS7+jHKl0FQeW+HeIObjESXmp uEQ/MbCqcZNLO0Ev8QrZQ1Oih+fo1pvKWpHtQAad/LqNQMrtVKxy5IfFIvdMZUqe/kQc Ydi1dM3j9ccp9wv7DDlaam1M/9MK8TCCiR9gJyOIIkcziKTCyKlxoJBDkl3+pGgFd9y/ LUeg==
X-Received: by 10.112.9.104 with SMTP id y8mr71165lba.132.1362690608456; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:10:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.51.229 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:09:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN6mM-rT315uSbeTQfKuCiVwsEDhi7Q6DEbt8pjiJ_4i6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <B9549E2E-6E68-4F34-A9C0-1F050285A70A@acmepacket.com> <CABkgnnXCio-Dw7dN5yfSjeRf3wG2oWow_M2mU-Y49TedSAPQmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6CFTix3W9qWgC1T0O36t4SajL3hMXaHOdkat-p5TY_xA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMLdEkFZq5rMOY0texKb4DtFQ-O86JkC17kJihxv6Dj8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6mM-rT315uSbeTQfKuCiVwsEDhi7Q6DEbt8pjiJ_4i6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:09:48 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nz=NZb=UaevUSS7GRSBpvn-v9_=QHz6iddnZzyx5-TSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe2ee6a7f24b04d75c21f6
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 21:10:33 -0000

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Martin Thomson
> >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Obviously I (and my employer) agree with these sentiments
> >> > wholeheartedly.  Both Robin and Hadriel.
> >> >
> >> > That doesn't change the fact that a number of people are highly
> >> > motivated to protect their investment in SDP offer/answer.  For those
> >> > people, the pain that causes everyone else is clearly far less
> >> > important than the pain they feel at this moment.  So here we are.
> >>
> >> [MB] I originally thought that either approach could work.  I did see
> >> the value that folks saw in using SDP offer/answer. But after sitting
> >> through the interim meeting last month, I am very much of the mindset
> >> that using SDP O/A is a bad idea.   I think many of us thought that
> >> using the SDP blob would help with interoperability with "legacy" SIP
> >> endpoints.  I don't see that now at all.  I think we will end up with
> >> a very fragile solution that will be very difficult to extend/modify
> >> later if we continue down the SDP O/A path.
> >> [/MB]
> >>
> >
> > Hasn't the WG already been asked this question not once but
> > twice.
> [MB] Yes.  And, some of us have changed our positions based upon the
> challenges that the group is facing in getting the current approach
> specified and agreed.  I don't disagree that it is not a good thing
> that this is being discussed yet again.  [/MB]
>

[Gotta love the triple negation!]

Why can't we have it both ways?

Maintain the current way to get the raw SDP using createOffer, but then
provide an interface to change that offer before setLocalDescription.

Even CISCO provides such an API:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/sip_tn/8_5_1/4-sdp_api.html
(I think we can do a better one than this, but it's a reference point).

Cheers,
Silvia.