Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Wed, 05 October 2011 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD22B21F8A7B for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.034
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1NCD3IuZ8DG for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E0321F8726 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so1458204vcb.31 for <>; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id br10mr650809vcb.41.1317811215330; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 03:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:40:15 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: Tim Panton <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:37:09 -0000

2011/10/5 Tim Panton <>om>:
>> Your points are perfectly valid and should indeed be covered. But I
>> didn't want to be so explicit in my immature API suggestion. It was
>> just an overview.

> I guess what I was getting at was the fact that the SDP seemed
> central to the API - I'd like something more generic and javascript
> friendly as the central concept.

Hi Tim. At the end you web application will receive (via the custom
signaling) something "like" and SDP containing the media information
offered/answered by the peer (when receiving or initiating a media

This is: your web browser needs to know the remote IP:port, the media
streams, supported codecs by the peer... At the end that looks like a
SDP. And such "SDP" should be retrieved by your web application via
some signaling protocol (on top of HTTP or WebSocket), and you will
receive it as a JSON object, or XML, or whatever format.

Then you will always need to parse such "like-SDP", obtain something
like a WebRTC.SDP object, and use it for starting/answering a session.

You can propose a different name, something like...
"WebRTC.SessionDescription"? :)
but the underlying concept is the same (IMHO).


Iñaki Baz Castillo