[rtcweb] Cross posting: Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 870E121E80E7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 IGjHYATHo1jw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA4511E8123 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id up14so3353774obb.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+1y7/9JwyAQbKBGzmW4OdX45eAPQzwommeDp+hTnXQE=; b=vTnibLAfnzp+ReH821BhJ5VzyvyAwPmQDAF/iG8hZ/SmpARTzwBNUNxTPPa+vM1zjs CIwR3cGffsumcXj3cS1TezLv0nLlHM4IIL4/I4ybur/gqW8HNaL7OEJCJQebL39Z+Flg 5Nd25kT0HqcaMi8vCAmhK4NRNaE/WawoknfA1zamMvTWJM4GDnW9YrN1pY8V5wN2psAX cQgNLIET+xs79Zkl7n2sqXcp/PYb2Lx2OezpwrLLi6YIPWAHNqLHQBxPE1ayTEd65Rv6 b9rV1zuo1ZaxcX5fbDt1tQu905MROdS/DwAi/FCfTAkAz4Tr+nCz4aBVkSvRmSlNhWg4 jM+w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.134.9 with SMTP id pg9mr35759igb.29.1375172282761; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.202 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDx26E2NtznBtOuxei5p=5VmQkRnUGw7qqfHn7-455TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b41407e6b484604e2b63ffa"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] Cross posting: Re: SDP is not suitable for WebRTC
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:18:31 -0000

Howdy,

We have asked that folks avoid cross-posting, in order to keep it easier
for folks to follow a thread.  Please keep this discussion on public-webrtc.

thanks,

Ted Hardie

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2013/7/30 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>:
> > Since you seem to be doing a full mesh and you seem to be wanting to
> > receive from everyone and be able to talk back to everyone, wouldn't
> > this need to be 8 different SDP offers in a full mesh network rather
> > than one SDP offer with 13 different m-lines? I don't follow how each
> > of the recipients would pick the right m-line for themselves...
>
>
> Silvia, I don't feel I am doing a full mesh, but something really
> common, which is:
>
> - I contact, from my browser, to a conference server in which there is
> an active conference with N participants.
>
> - I provide my audio and video tracks to the conference server.
>
> - The server provides me with N audio/video tracks belonging to N
> participants.
>
> - I don't want to do a second SDP O/A round trip.
>
> Please, note that my browser has a signaling and a media session with
> the conference server. This is, the endpoints are my browser and the
> conference server. The fact that the conference server acts as a mixer
> by joining all the participants changes nothing. The browser
> establishes a single RTC session with the server. This is not an
> exotic scenario at all.
>
> And no, I do not want to send 8 different SDP offers since I will
> mantain just a single RTC session (with the conference server). All
> the participants do the same, and the conference server is responsible
> of taking all the tracks from participants and send them to all the
> participants (via separate tracks).
>
>
> I would like to hear the opinion of those in favour of SDP for WebRTC,
> since what I am clearly stating is that SDP and Plan-Unified is *bad*
> for this common scenario.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>