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

Eric Rescorla <> Wed, 03 July 2013 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE9221F9D3D for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.143
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSn0yFE1AmmV for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613EF21F9D57 for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ih17so3907573qab.12 for <>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=H+cILg1haMGTNVbPC4EhtldmSns1YCbDX5VV0tZRFLE=; b=DF5FiSTvy9I0hrL7fYlkDKIPkNSfqcgzY4XccvvWiwJwDk39tTmiuPO/17kKVm+byA nglVtV4EzxRn2p7ozTz/fx00BbLcLTC2uyvskGUYDSs0rhpbWJHAqNIyTXsdjSO+TmOd BvFV4dS8t1T6WZ6a5h5gRpyPOJuKwZ2cQ3xss1jNJx1so+lRGitahQHk9xCHZaWhewrw 4MBfWdFTVo8/7hgt9suIEo3VPf2iQRBWG8ptP/N86rCh+DYbB4AL5AcnZBaPi6+2g5Me RzHhz2pLxUuQ5s+yF7DUQoADBKX7q4QxuZaexuf+5wR5arc2p/PwItxwrwwWKP5mmIpa 8MNw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id t4mr835905qcp.59.1372886481707; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:20:41 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Peter Thatcher <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0023544707ac0f40f404e0a20b0f"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkW1i8j+D09ArxZsxU0RB8suKupZ9EKkh9XR9oFYOCkwIzS8tDLzBsAwDId7D58yZjbqh+x
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:21:31 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Thatcher <> 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.