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

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 08 July 2013 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 C422321F91B0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 eX1XY0JyTzkl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0691321F8FAF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-vpn3-1183.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D58C822E1FA; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:40:32 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:40:31 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8B58E2AB-09B7-4816-8BC4-B932030E2ED2@iii.ca>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?windows-1252?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 03:40:45 -0000

On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:

> So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with Jingle is just impossible.

The mapping of SDP to jingle is in the Jingle specs … I'm not express any opinion on this one way or another other but the authors of theses specs have always claimed Jingle fully mapped to and from SDP.