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

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

On 7/3/13 11:37 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Thatcher
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>