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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2013/6/19 Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>:
> We need to be very clear what we talk about, or some people are always going
> to be confused :)
>
> So, AFAIK, the discussion is about SDP O/A usage in the API, only in the
> API, and nowhere but the API.
>
> Whatever people us on the wire is outside the scope.


Hi Christer,

I do not dare to summarize what we request in a single response, and I
don't want to say something that "I didn't want to say" ;)

IMHO this thread clearly describes what we request, i.e. in these exact mails:

- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07896.html
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07899.html


My "non-normative" summary:

I don't think that the discussion is just about "SDP O/A usage in the
API". We don't want a replacement for SDP, nor a new representation of
SDP, nor to deal with blob strings between the JS layer and the WebRTC
layer. In short we want something like a JS wrapper of the native
WebRTC API, to directly manage media/transport parameters and media
streams without having to pass a monolithic and unmanageable SDP blob
between the JS and the WebRTC layer. And once the JS makes all the API
calls to get the required media parameters, the JS can send them to
the remote peer in the way it prefers (which may be via a SDP created
by the JS app, or via an AJAX request for sending codecs/media-types
info followed by a WebSocket connection for sending ICE candidates one
by one, or serialized in JSON via a previously open DataChannel
session... or whatever mechanism available in the Web and browsers).

For sure, other participants in this thread can improve/fix my "summary".

Please. re-read the 3 links above, IMHO they should clearly describe
what we are requesting for :)


Best regards.



--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>