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

[Binod <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday 04 July 2013 01:51 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2013/7/4 Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>:
>> 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
> <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb