Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 5118A21E809E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 cjl-6Jcn6hnN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD22B11E80E1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j13so6052638wgh.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=nnQ23MIoz49Rv2mOA/LaYrFc70/TYnrl2pRMFpggYMY=; b=YILQxnBsNmf0fQRNvAa6yCiVpB22Ay4idstF+s9rBZ9zEYQJSAMXi3/CAinh0vkUsw 4pFbVLQXv1rrlRm9BDMLpz/MGpbE32J0SSOe5QZNgBgAAoyCvI4xc+O+D4If5re50e6v eF/S2vEkPRY40ikpjA77Nr3vrW/rdaaj9vaSsBKkHpt7Xj29y6mJazWnLJ3EGK14e7AX 1BfBUYnmVRH2LltibEwZudM6XqsUXhATQ3J/m5TLgjnJYiiTve9OXaODSoKN9Yx5uzgV En+Y67MRDC0QOH0AjO+5GVAs9D3deaj90v5wuDl5mnc2/MS98AR2Elr/93+SWcKXJh71 hnQg==
X-Received: by 10.194.104.199 with SMTP id gg7mr7333571wjb.56.1371768628056; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm1961358wiv.0.2013.06.20.15.50.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j13so5950220wgh.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.81.103 with SMTP id z7mr874480wix.65.1371768624706; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1371768297.54026.YahooMailNeo@web171302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <51C333E1.1030709@hookflash.com> <CALiegf=6rgFLEmZS=61mnCK5ZC2CXPKWERRm1X2aO-YzS7HQ+w@mail.gmail.com> <1371768297.54026.YahooMailNeo@web171302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:50:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuRyXgTJOnub2McZk-+S0hc4CBQv+aLhxCXQ7XEfO-Dog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Bossiel thioriguel <bossiel@yahoo.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=f46d044288cc9751ab04df9dc579
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnl8atgrk6Yx84d+actjNIsbb40/eUjGJjJv2qFKnoW0EAjeb+s2Hq0UG29cI1j3JgOvpWF
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:50:30 -0000

+1 on this as well. We will provide a service which will connect something
that implements this draft to public PSTN/SIP
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bossiel thioriguel <bossiel@yahoo.fr>wrote;wrote:

> +1 for SDP ...but we (Doubango Telecom) would provide a gateway to SIP/IMS
> world for any such draft as proof of concept.
> I've seen on many posts on msdn blog that it's easy to interop with SIP
> using CU-RTC-WEB but haven't seen any demo.
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *De :* Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
> *À :* Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
> *Cc :* "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 20 juin 2013 23h27
> *Objet :* Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option
>
> IMHO this is the way to go, something that will make feasible to build any
> *future* protocol that just relies in RTP but not on SDP O/A.
>
> +1
>
>
> 2013/6/20 Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
>
>
> You are right. It's time for those of us who are begging for an
> alternative to SDP to come up with an alternative.
>
> I'm willing to lead such an effort. I just ask others to please have an
> open mind. I absolutely do understand the need for the SIP world to have an
> easy API they can use for SDP. But I also know SDP as an primary surface
> API is making anything beyond a basic calling a requirement to mangle SDP
> as a mechanism to control and obtain properties from an underlying
> media/RTC engine.
>
> I think there is a really good compromise. That is to provide an API that
> will adhere to the security policies needed (e.g. respects the need to
> require ICE establishment), but provides a simple shim API similar to what
> people already have with SDP but not be required to use for those who want
> to a more direct approach.
>
> There's no need to "burn" the entire thing to the ground and start over
> and that is _not_ my desire.
>
> This WebRTC thing must succeed but I can't imagine the W3C accepting our
> proposal for mangling SDP as a primary surface API to do common edge case
> scenarios. WIth an alternative proposal that satisfies both camps, I
> believe they could accept and we can stop the anit-SDP crowd grumblings
> once and for all.
>
> To that end I'm going to write two drafts:
> draft-raymond-webrtc-js-object-api-rationale-00 (to explain requirements,
> philosophy, methodology, benefits/pitfalls, use cases that are
> difficult/impossible with SDP+O/A)
> draft-raymond-webrtc-js-object-api-00 (to outline the actual API)
>
> Plus, I'll produce a shim on top of whatever API that will allow the SDP
> folks to have a simple SDP based API similar to what exists now but is
> entirely written in JavaScript to prove that this can be done.
>
> I really want a viable solutions for all interested in having a really
> good proposal API to ultimately become accepted by the W3C.
>
> If anyone has anything I should add to either of these drafts or wants to
> be involved, please contact me.
>
> -Robin
>
>
>   Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>  20 June, 2013 12:55 AM
> Hi,
>
>
> At the virtual interim, the Plan A and Plan B folks were asked to sit down
> and try to come up with a compromise "Plan AB" solution.
>
> I guess it would be good if people that don't want SDP could try to come
> up with a compromise "CU No Plan" solution :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>