Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model

Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com> Sat, 06 July 2013 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.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 DAC7B21F9C13 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 0cejXd9svqWQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 07:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EC021F9C11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 07:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r66EwWmm019337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 6 Jul 2013 14:58:32 GMT
Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r66EwUOr029480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Jul 2013 14:58:31 GMT
Received: from abhmt108.oracle.com (abhmt108.oracle.com [141.146.116.60]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r66EwUiq007513; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 14:58:30 GMT
Received: from dhcp-adc-twvpn-3-vpnpool-10-154-110-216.vpn.oracle.com (/10.154.110.216) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 07:58:30 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkvMCWVnAwhi16Ozf3CSC7i1_4LRoVBU-9g6cHkuuoJQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:58:32 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1CFA0FAA-6FB1-4FB7-A9EE-14BF7587DD05@oracle.com>
References: <51CA6FEE.6030702@hookflash.com> <093EDF0B-AFEA-4979-AC72-23AF2FC5E8C7@oracle.com> <CALiegfkvMCWVnAwhi16Ozf3CSC7i1_4LRoVBU-9g6cHkuuoJQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model
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: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:58:45 -0000

Well in our defense, #9 wasn't our argument - that was the argument the browser makers themselves raised two years ago on the deciding conference call for why the browsers should be doing SDP rather than a real API.  In fact if I recall right, I think that was the main deciding argument for why browsers shouldn't offer a lower-level API.

-hadriel


On Jul 3, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2013/7/3 Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>om>:
>> You might also want to cite some of the reasons noted in this old draft:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-01
> 
> Well, section "3. Defining a WebRTC Protocol in the Browser" says:
> 
> 
>   9) Using the SDP offer/answer model provides a more rigid API
>     interaction model, enabling Browser vendors to perform less
>     testing and provide more robust implementations than exposing all
>     discrete components to a Javascript API would.
> 
>   10)   Using a higher-level API model, such as would be done with an
>     SDP offer/answer model, means the cross-browser vendor-specific
>     variances would be reduced.  Exposing a lower-level API would
>     inevitably lead to some differences in different browsers due to
>     differences in their architectures/implementation.
> 
> 
> Time to reconsider those assertions? ;)
> 
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>