IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 D0F8721F9B95 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.972
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.555, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 zs2IKplF-EWz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AA821F9B94 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id t56so3600147wes.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=UG2T/oQqqpAnKV2VUmaoNzM4eqxfUOfluGyGSWG6kCI=; b=AQ4G8Rgw+efNgQxFVU9Hr3I1iD1ZGZ4l70cpHtF+b2olyd4WavyBYbOrgllwj9inr+ xDbOK6YWzmVmgHMbdi+1Yq8CZ1jdEIVmI71HbiDlgB6Q5/kzL9oRQYS314D3PIAvb3SZ 3U4RmK7amV+c9FBZE+pxyFBFpawmIcgasgLzaTcwMbeV5PFCLDM56iqKSHa/wcCBZDP3 JfPcrRv9sPkKzpkQW042ty5jBumlAUCrGNYbtGdzNJE2lFnzckPjkX6DU0WZ+KmpxgLL CzTWyYVOOFklFJ5cFwHbW4B0crvZTwNljeyH7TL2g70UIoGPQBJ3cjaHJUeHGiyDrr/M AU+A==
X-Received: by 10.194.48.49 with SMTP id i17mr3314342wjn.55.1371576322762; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm3503258wiv.0.2013.06.18.10.25.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id m46so3674093wev.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.85.6 with SMTP id d6mr8179499wiz.47.1371576320564; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C096E8.2000300@hookflash.com>
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <51C096E8.2000300@hookflash.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:25:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvwM2gkHgdnZWCRTK0dsEdzwu8Me6v2xBo1soVXqw0Ekg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="f46d0442808e5ea7fa04df70ff59"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmkZa13HxGfDNT87SAJ6XLEwZlqsEJKdfG7Jy1vPUtTZqjwhiCI8LzNLgCfNBxuwhc2paD
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:25:25 -0000

I am also strongly for removing O/A and SDP from the API. This is a wrong
API surface that does not provide the necessary degree of control for
building WebRTC apps.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:

>
> +1
>
> ... and to be clear it's SDP with offer/answer that really makes it
> horrible. Replacing with nicer JSON or a wrapper API solves nothing IMHO.
>
> -Robin
>
>
>   Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
>  18 June, 2013 12:36 PM
>
> I would also appreciate that those in favour of mandating SDP as the
> core communication for WebRTC explain their rationale again (given the
> number of arguments against SDP and the frustration SDP is causing),
> and also that they give arguments and responses to all the SDP related
> issues nicely summarized in this mail:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07873.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email