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

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 0DC1021F85D1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.787
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.688, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 NrQiWpZo1KiK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (zimbra.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2247221F8515 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] (unknown [93.89.81.113]) by zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1D037A903; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:18:12 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=GpVUQb7cPMQH+4DpO_fvYPP7LjyyZ8uO5r13hDQORyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:05:18 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D17EDB43-3C1D-4C35-94A9-1C9FEF6EE36C@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmYgQ+yb=pDp1J2_PVa1SkxTOuaUCM02Vt6-iGabwif1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCUTiPO3eASjn0mbRA9YCF6TMmGGOjQ4NkVkvzVMN39Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnx=qoS_pqyC45WVEYEFqj-3eP9g_kyhAUaOO6He_UEfw@mail.gmail.com> <91623260-6A12-4737-8BA9-4D6B60FCD389@phonefromhere.com> <CALiegfk_6pviBMBmYUvj69JA73Uy0rnXaMvThPuGT2R5NOWycQ@mail.gmail.com> <0EF30DF7-91D2-48A5-90BD-B7E7CA3C61E4@phonefromhere.com> <CALiegf=GpVUQb7cPMQH+4DpO_fvYPP7LjyyZ8uO5r13hDQORyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:02:18 -0000

On 5 Oct 2011, at 11:40, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/10/5 Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>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
> session).



> 
> 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.


Agreed. We are now getting down to the format, I'd like to see the
codec capabilities separated from the network ports , as to my mind they
are orthogonal. SDP gets into all sorts of complexity with IPv6 (e.g. happy eyeballs)
partly because it intermixes the 2 things. 


> 
> 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.
> 

Yes, we will need that information to set up the session. 
I'd like the format of that information to be one that I can easily
manipulate it - selecting the relevant ports and codecs in javascript
without actually needing to parse or use SDP or being limited to offer-answer 
semantics.



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

Yes, we are now discussing detail, but as they say, the devil is in the detail ;-)

> 
> Regards.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>