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

Binod <binod.pg@oracle.com> Thu, 04 July 2013 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <binod.pg@oracle.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 89ED221F9F53 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Fjg8S4dFqUyD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BB821F9F4F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r649AcO3030368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:10:39 GMT
Received: from userz7022.oracle.com (userz7022.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r649AbSq002799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:10:38 GMT
Received: from abhmt102.oracle.com (abhmt102.oracle.com [141.146.116.54]) by userz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r649Ab1U002791 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:10:37 GMT
Received: from [10.159.253.40] (/10.159.253.40) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 02:10:37 -0700
Message-ID: <51D53C07.6040402@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 14:40:31 +0530
From: Binod <binod.pg@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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> <CABcZeBMCGdY=LS0OG22aFdhwU2m_-H4_sHb15SAYBT7e2_4RLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfk9nqabnnF8tA5Qwg4_XUKB80sMpA59vm_2v3p4k3VOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBN-pEN9jK36aN0kkMX9M82tpJr3B6+TQa4ihJgAJW6vKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMxF6UbeXbLLVBiTEhR0mAWL-HgDn7Ra=eiuQ1kUsrFCg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfk4QjOTeG2qQqdENg2QpkYUPbVV7VO9-1bhBv6Pd6tANg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfk4QjOTeG2qQqdENg2QpkYUPbVV7VO9-1bhBv6Pd6tANg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]
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: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:10:45 -0000

On Thursday 04 July 2013 01:51 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2013/7/4 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>;:
>> Looking back at your posts from back then, I see you did in fact suggest
>> a set of API modifications that would have included an abstract session
>> description. That would in fact have made Jingle somewhat (though not
>> really that much) easier. So my last sentence here is unfair. My apologies.
> Initially I though that SessionDescription was a powerful JS Object
> with all the fields and attributes to construct a SDP, so a developer
> could extract those media/transport fields and create a SDP via JS. At
> the same time, the SessionDescription object would include helper
> methods (defined by the WebRTC API) to build a plain SDP (i.e. toSDP)
> and some others like XML-SDP (i.e. toXMLSDP).
I like that approach. Have an API to specify all/most of what is
in the SDP and then use a toSDP to generate actual SDP string to be sent
across the wire.

Other side should be able to reconstruct the browser side
object(s) using the received SDP string.

thanks,
Binod.
>
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>;
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb