Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> Mon, 08 July 2013 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
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 762F921F9D19 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 vZgpll5M1CRE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (lost.IN.psyced.org [188.40.42.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B3521F9C86 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r68Es4xj019746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:54:04 +0200
Received: from localhost (fippo@localhost) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id r68Es4st019742; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:54:04 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: lo.psyced.org: fippo owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:54:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-X-Sender: fippo@lo.psyced.org
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUFaGM+7j8xyjxJ31ZOwDCbwdgivTw1hNjUXqEB9c7kkWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1307081649420.19554@lo.psyced.org>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com> <8B58E2AB-09B7-4816-8BC4-B932030E2ED2@iii.ca> <CAJrXDUEZixeAsDc42WY-kZvrpA-p4s1sjET-qzxZ2VH9x7yc5Q@mail.gmail.com> <51DAD083.8000901@stpeter.im> <CAJrXDUFaGM+7j8xyjxJ31ZOwDCbwdgivTw1hNjUXqEB9c7kkWw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="683466026-694137549-1373295244=:19554"
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:54:29 -0000

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> >     > So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with
> >     Jingle is just impossible.
> >
> >     The mapping of SDP to jingle is in the Jingle specs ? I'm not
> >     express any opinion on this one way or another other but the authors
> >     of theses specs have always claimed Jingle fully mapped to and from SDP.
> >
> >
> > I think he meant "impossible without SDP munging", which I think is
> > undeniable.
> 
> What do you mean by "SDP munging"?
> 
> 
> I mean that if the JS wants to send Jingle XML over the wire, it has to parse the SDP.  Then, when it receives Jingle XML, it has to serialize SDP.   That parsing and serializing of SDP I call "munging".  We could come up with better words for more specific
> activities, but that seems to be the word everyone else uses, so it's what I've used.

I think "mangle" is a better term here. People who want to do jingle are 
aware of the fact that this is more difficult than running their own 
proprietary stuff over xml. Or use SoX :-)