Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Mon, 01 July 2013 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 7173611E8228 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.034
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 bUb0z61oePHR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B829311E8229 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.210.183.55] (mobile-166-137-187-072.mycingular.net [166.137.187.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC80D1480C8; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
References: <51CA6FEE.6030702@hookflash.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C3093E0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfmsahUM6w00thQSCu3CpKse2C3LKSb1LzkwodNgKTOK0g@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C309655@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfnAN9SJx0nLyegFJoQscG-18Gs4umd-pe7S3y6xREpByQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMC5FoxKSz7DuHxN8cEO=0PDpoAGrLshpFmnDe3gco06cw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnpj+nBdhn0g8A7iTdXKZdqvwyffjdLAOuM_qQkhTuKew@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA1PhoJB9qGUnXDUHRJNac5OszM4o5O7-6aCU-ahszMNw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfkei-dS-EHt2vqofft_uhKNz+UuK7R5LX3bgDkh=0ZwqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCDXpZ99Gu85eRcyCbwW1M-4uacKPvU8R1zFbKiCfde2g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCDXpZ99Gu85eRcyCbwW1M-4uacKPvU8R1zFbKiCfde2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0EB1EC9-F80F-467F-801D-AED39272F291@matthew.at>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146)
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:22:01 -0700
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model
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, 01 Jul 2013 19:22:21 -0000

> Honestly, I have read it and I don't see how you avoid mandating some standard
> interface between the JS and browser.  That needn't be SDP, but if it is causing the
> two sides to negotiate candidate transports and emit RTP, it's going to be hard going
> to avoid it being SDPNG.

This lack of imagination among people designing the APIs we are supposed to use is disturbing.

Have you read, just as an example, the CU-RTCWEB API? It achieves a browser API without resorting to SDP or anything like it.

If you insist on Offer/Answer *and* "opaque" blobs (that we all know people will modify anyway), then sure, SDP looks attractive... But that's just a failure to imagine a world where VoIP isn't based on SIP and SDP O/A.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)