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

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Sat, 06 July 2013 06:34 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 89F4E21F9CD0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 23:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.850, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xNTcdOINmkUv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 23:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D640221F9CC2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 23:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7ef76d000004bbc-11-51d7ba56fe3e
Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 94.3B.19388.65AB7D15; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 08:33:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.6]) by ESESSHC008.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.42]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 08:33:57 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
Thread-Index: AQHOeDFbTNRhHYI3NkSZeqhrbqmeQg==
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 06:33:57 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.146]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7YruuBBpsf81useH2O3eLa8tes Fmv/tbM7MHss2FTqsWTJTyaPyY/bmAOYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyzh94z1pwQ6xi4/NnjA2M dwS6GDk5JARMJC5evcIKYYtJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAwo8SqfYtYIZyFjBILJixlBqliEwiU2Lpv ARuILSKgIPHrzwkWEJtZIEhi7q5nTCC2sECVxPLDx9i7GDmAaqollvSXQ5TrSXRd3ApWziKg ItGz/wUjiM0r4Cvxee8iFohdS5kk7q6/ww6SYAS66PupNUwQ88Ulbj2ZzwRxqYDEkj3nmSFs UYmXj/9BfaAk8WPDJah79CRuTJ3CBmFrSyxb+JoZYpmgxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFp WcDIsoqRPTcxMye93HwTIzA+Dm75bbCDcdN9sUOM0hwsSuK8m/XOBAoJpCeWpGanphakFsUX leakFh9iZOLglGpgXKFfYSjDZmUgyHg+pOXvLo0Nqezl2/Qs1/JzpJit49n7l4tnQ+mrk0++ XNJlXnu0wmzJml+LW/sr1Is4hHUuhwofel57a1XmmYxaE9H5if8XaU1m0PjQOPPcrcrgZPaK zWdum5yNU4ndFSrutu9Rg82Ul/1F26bob/qgu2DVf8+Lq1ot2fZnKLEUZyQaajEXFScCAGbl q+RdAgAA
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: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:34:07 -0000

On 7/3/13 11:37 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com
> <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com
>     <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>
>         On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Thatcher
>         <pthatcher@google.com <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
>
>             Camp #0:  I've used SDP for years and I'm very comfortable
>             with it.  Using SDP as the control surface really helps my
>             use case, which is legacy interop.  Defining an API without
>             SDP would be too much work, and probably fail.  Look at what
>             happened with SDPng!  Supporting all these advanced use
>             cases doesn't seem worth it.   If developers are doing that
>             much advanced stuff, they can learn to munge SDP.  It isn't
>             that bad.
>
>
>         Hmm... That's not my understanding of the situation at all.
>
>         Rather, I believe the expectation is that you shouldn't have to
>         modify the
>         SDP but rather there should be API points to cover most of the
>         use cases
>         that people want. This isn't to say that all those API points
>         exist or that
>         they work or whatever.
>
>         -Ekr
>
>
>     I'm glad to be wrong here.  Is the phrase "you shouldn't have to
>     modify the SDP but rather there should be API points to cover most
>     of the use cases"  the consensus of the working group?
>
>
> I thought it was, but I'm not the chair, so maybe you could ask Harald or
> Stefan.

I definitely think this is the consensus of the working group.

I think the exception would be when interoperating with other systems 
that use another dialect of SDP - I don't think we could cover such 
translations with API points.


>
>
>     Along with that, is "use Jingle for signalling" included in your set
>     of "most of the use cases"?
>
>
> No, I don't think it is, since it's not SDP.
>
> Maybe I could phrase this differently: It was my understanding that you
> should have
> API points to get the PC to emit SDP that would express the policies,
> preferences,
> actions, etc. that the application wants. If you want something that's
> not SDP you would
> need to gateway.
>
> This may or may not be a satisfactory state of affairs, but it was the
> rule I was using
> (based on what I thought the WG expected) for when use cases needed new API
> points.
>
> -Ekr
>