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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 A28D021F8A9B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:34:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 BEpjJrrDezDa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f169.google.com (mail-ve0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF9521F8A6E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 15so656257vea.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:34:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RBh7q8R4s4lJPNfMEFrhVCTa801Ct+YZfIa2cqqJp98=; b=mrNiDcrdRDF7boZXxUaqyLw/a+HsGj7GV/kN8p659+ilDH8rPLOa38D62BnG2HmRL/ P8AjoD+QiTWYMqnT9wMb6kNK7SyZhMHZXCw/+TlC/bdojN7fWRcu+zBXP3rDMNOAnZp9 TbycecAuabQYHOTqF6DIGodQzUTY1J7IZi5Ljw/fT9fxXytfUka0GVXMae+G1cncKq9b xYG6Qo48bFY4ISa4/ikRuZVUiPN3Iy2rlB0m3trcn8g00RUp1P9kBwUNZS94M2kwA5hZ So7Chm0lYLCqpmUFRg/eX48WX1xOUyk6ebIZwNF7nsxmqm+n8wWUgA/QL8ZSPgBNMQ3J nW/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=RBh7q8R4s4lJPNfMEFrhVCTa801Ct+YZfIa2cqqJp98=; b=bYXaGcOnIPi0Rbn5mCYFIR06oUfK7tyJt5zI7Xzs7ReAkMievPjVD5VAHy9dt5JKYq /oS2cHkcWsl0/B8GY5lRxAd2+qpYHUchC1ZOIZ8Nr/MmQbgEeemfUQV3Zk6K8ropoCoH lL2qOa0q8SILGRaWEdl0yFv5a59r6wkM+Emf+kwR8g35KtmQ0pjJsbtkCixh1yTyZTp5 q/vTMz6iT42z+nMlISYqyNfVnXUQdbsrZNcXatydkwbR2YQsYtCc3TTiqrUWp7U2gEK8 PcYDr+3mew8ohk2EQPOH855pu9DNVQG9LvUtk+8gwEMvrjgiJQNxTMOQa2ZBO3XaNgqH RtBA==
X-Received: by 10.220.155.8 with SMTP id q8mr13130443vcw.42.1362681264811; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:34:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.49.102 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUGSMfQ=SNrSxKVvay=4JUXHULy0cO2pRN9+iFJ23doWZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <B9549E2E-6E68-4F34-A9C0-1F050285A70A@acmepacket.com> <CAJrXDUGSMfQ=SNrSxKVvay=4JUXHULy0cO2pRN9+iFJ23doWZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHvcsuN6vXs8wku_aUrs-siHdn2wBDOJBgpgDPJySgdSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlhkeCSOc4qGjT1qRAwwxQ9feaw7Qyyng7A2fph+xRW+e8l5MDdnMwSqLftdo71amO2Eq3BX1ZXo+oJ6VE8TAoCjzDkuL7bvVuTxKgUb9cJKi2cS7DBlJfeyL9kLRr1l7XBk6YIMO0JkhXof9QIVm1DDs6UJuUrV7z+QJwL5+Gz+bLB6MpTRF9mihi/eoZ4sDWMk7tN
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 18:34:27 -0000

A question for all of you in the "please don't make us use SDP as an
API forever" crowd (and I include myself): Would it be acceptable to
you to have an intermediate step where we keep createOffeer,
setRemoteDescription and setLocalDescription as-is, but allow a JSON
argument?  It seems to be that such a thing could provide all the same
low-level of control as any other setup of methods, but may be much
more likely to be accepted by the group as a whole.  And, it would
still be a lot more pleasant for application developers, and leave
more flexibility for a future where low-level methods might be added.

As both an application developer and a browser implementor, I think a
good SessionDescription JSON format would be easy to implement,
pleasant to use, a small incremental step from what we currently have,
and would relieve the standards body of so much fighting over what the
SDP should look like.

I know it wouldn't be exactly what you're looking for, but I think it
would be achievable and much better than what we have.

If you're interested in such a thing, let me know.  I might be able to
provide something a little more concrete idea as to what such a format
could be.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> Hadriel,
>
> That email is great.  Thank you for preserving it and for bringing it
> to our attention.  I am especially sympathetic to the argument that
> it's undesirable to have the W3C tied to MMUSIC for all time.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> wrote:
>>
>> I knew there was a reason for posting an email for the archive machine to store for eternity... see this:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01256.html
>>
>> -hadriel
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Do we need SDP "blob" format in the exchange in the first place? All media
>>> can be done without SDP given an intelligent stream API. An API already
>>> exists to create these streams (albeit somewhat lacking if we remove the
>>> SDP 'blob'). This API helps "simplify" creating this blob for later
>>> exchange. But the blob is truly not needed. Each side could in fact create
>>> the desired streams, pass in the appropriate media information such as
>>> codecs and ICE candidates and chose the socket pair to multiplex upon.
>>> Yes, it's a bit more low level but it certainly can be done (and cleanly).
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-plan/
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with the draft in an SDP/SIP mindset but I'm going to take
>>> it from a totally different non-SDP angle. I have to say, the ideas
>>> presented are very good. I appreciate FEC, and synchronizing streams is
>>> cool. But SDP isn¹t needed to do it. Let me as the programmer worry about
>>> how to manage streams and the features on the streams and associations
>>> between the streams via an API only.
>>>
>>> Point 4, 5 and 6 in the specification all have to do with the complexities
>>> of having to describe the intentions of mixing in SDP. So no comment
>>> beyond ³don¹t use SDP².
>>>
>>> As for 7.1 ­ ³this is because the sender choses the SSRC² ­ only true
>>> because we are forced to use SDP and the assumptions is that it¹s SIP. We
>>> could have the receiver dictate what the sender should use in advance of
>>> any media. In our case, we establish in advance what we want from all
>>> parties before even ³ringing² the other party. We do not have SSRC
>>> collisions as we reversed the scenario allowing the receiver to pick the
>>> expected SSRC. Coordinating the streams is a problem with SIP because of
>>> how they do forking/conferencing. This specification forces this issue on
>>> those not using SIP. If SIP has problems with streams arriving early to
>>> their stateful offer/answer then let them worry about ³how² they intend to
>>> match the streams at a higher SDP layer and get this draft out of the
>>> RTCWEB track on the SIP track. To be clear, the proposal seems entirely
>>> reasonable and intelligent for SIP/SDP. But it¹s way to SIP centric for
>>> general use.
>>>
>>> On that note, what I do need in the API is an ability to dictate the SSRC
>>> when I create an RTP stream for sending (should I care to do that).
>>>
>>> 7.2 Multiple render
>>>
>>> Again this is an issue of SIP/SDP. We can control the SSRCs to split them
>>> out to allow multiplexing easily on the same RTP ports with multiple
>>> parties/sources. If given the primitives to control the streams just, this
>>> specification could be used to dictate how to negotiate issues in their
>>> space.
>>>
>>> 7.2.1 I¹m feeling the pain. How about just giving me an API where I can
>>> indicate what streams are FEC associated.
>>>
>>> 7.3 Give me API to give crypto keys to RTP layer. Let me handle the
>>> fingerprint and security myself beyond that.
>>>
>>> 8. Let's just say politely that I would not want to be the developer
>>> assigned to programming around all this stuff.
>>>
>>> Again, a perfect illustration why I don¹t want SDP.
>>>
>>> Media is complicated for good reason as there are many untold use cases.
>>> The entire IETF/W3C discussion around video constraints illustrates some
>>> of the complexities and competing desires for just one single media type.
>>> If we tie ourselves to SDP we are limiting ourselves big time, and some of
>>> the cool future stuff will be horribly hampered by it.
>>>
>>> My issues with SDP can be summarized as:
>>>
>>> - unneeded - much too high level an API
>>> - arcane format - legacy and problematic
>>> - offer/answer
>>> - incompatibilities
>>> - lack of API contact
>>> - doesn't truly solve goal of interoperability with legacy systems (eg.
>>> SIP)
>>>
>>> Regret that I did not have time for feedback earlier. As you can tell, I
>>> am not at all happy with where we sit today wrt requiring SDP. IMHO we
>>> need a lower level API if we are going to insist on using SDP.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can read my entire (long) rant against SDP here
>>> http://blog.webrtc.is/2013/03/06/sdp-the-webrtc-boat-anchor/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb