Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP
Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 21:23 UTC
Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.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 3406421F8B1C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 T11qIsRuVozr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B3521F8AAC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fs12so995876lab.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:23:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=0LbFo+R503ZGy7+1ZEr7sXTc+mp8j8IhLwBwc5A8fRg=; b=v3XkvRItrjYBR8uSgLEyP12J3hVrXR78fmCz9V4ioxZLgz1wNT/uaH/gdyZMb9LM5T oQ0EkTBKCwOc40JHGrRIuaad+XWwcnDuitm9vnDhNzao0pOi4eaLpKgv9auq7QTu6wRP Rr0LBlA/ONB1fNYBNTmTGG57wmLHTsLi+dNX5lXrZmqdE/eLbgX2Zkx+mfwej3t+V//+ Qy+wfJ8PNZEzwfjhsHYvdbLhFSgrMEX18H5zYQbpsaS47dTEQa3Uy1L6daZtDUGSXWXB eJGtuJM3x0OegTcevL3MnAiVsZQg7Xn72k7YQsxmi2Adyr6h2ryTaMd4cI2eeS5RUxiI htpw==
X-Received: by 10.152.46.17 with SMTP id r17mr30191921lam.47.1362691382543; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:23:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.51.229 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:22:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUETwfY7ZvaXO_1Bq8gs8pOTgALQE8FiimrUX7sfuEpDsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <B9549E2E-6E68-4F34-A9C0-1F050285A70A@acmepacket.com> <CABkgnnXCio-Dw7dN5yfSjeRf3wG2oWow_M2mU-Y49TedSAPQmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6CFTix3W9qWgC1T0O36t4SajL3hMXaHOdkat-p5TY_xA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMLdEkFZq5rMOY0texKb4DtFQ-O86JkC17kJihxv6Dj8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6mM-rT315uSbeTQfKuCiVwsEDhi7Q6DEbt8pjiJ_4i6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp8n2nz=NZb=UaevUSS7GRSBpvn-v9_=QHz6iddnZzyx5-TSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUETwfY7ZvaXO_1Bq8gs8pOTgALQE8FiimrUX7sfuEpDsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:22:42 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kcEHcz11LOYYMZ3-nv2PYQKu=z6M=dsQ_H5JuR8ND7hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5524106cb8ba704d75c4f6c"
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP
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, 07 Mar 2013 21:23:11 -0000
Agreed, but it's also not sufficient. SDP is not "programmer friendly" enough because it has too many details that are protocol-details only and it's too hard to see the semantic bits in SDP and ignore the rest. For example: the programmer wants to say - I want to get this video resolution, this audio bitrate & channels, I want to use this camera and this microphone for this call. Having to manipulate SDP directly for this is a programmer's nightmare. Silvia. On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > You can already do that by "munging" the SDP. It's just not very > pleasant to do. > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Mary Barnes < > mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Martin Thomson > >> >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Obviously I (and my employer) agree with these sentiments > >> >> > wholeheartedly. Both Robin and Hadriel. > >> >> > > >> >> > That doesn't change the fact that a number of people are highly > >> >> > motivated to protect their investment in SDP offer/answer. For > those > >> >> > people, the pain that causes everyone else is clearly far less > >> >> > important than the pain they feel at this moment. So here we are. > >> >> > >> >> [MB] I originally thought that either approach could work. I did see > >> >> the value that folks saw in using SDP offer/answer. But after sitting > >> >> through the interim meeting last month, I am very much of the mindset > >> >> that using SDP O/A is a bad idea. I think many of us thought that > >> >> using the SDP blob would help with interoperability with "legacy" SIP > >> >> endpoints. I don't see that now at all. I think we will end up with > >> >> a very fragile solution that will be very difficult to extend/modify > >> >> later if we continue down the SDP O/A path. > >> >> [/MB] > >> >> > >> > > >> > Hasn't the WG already been asked this question not once but > >> > twice. > >> [MB] Yes. And, some of us have changed our positions based upon the > >> challenges that the group is facing in getting the current approach > >> specified and agreed. I don't disagree that it is not a good thing > >> that this is being discussed yet again. [/MB] > > > > > > [Gotta love the triple negation!] > > > > Why can't we have it both ways? > > > > Maintain the current way to get the raw SDP using createOffer, but then > > provide an interface to change that offer before setLocalDescription. > > > > Even CISCO provides such an API: > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/sip_tn/8_5_1/4-sdp_api.html > > (I think we can do a better one than this, but it's a reference point). > > > > Cheers, > > Silvia. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtcweb mailing list > > rtcweb@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > >
- [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP -… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Erik Lagerway
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- [rtcweb] Division of labor (Re: Proposed Plan for… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Division of labor (Re: Proposed Plan… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and R… Justin Uberti
- [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from the … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from … Dale R. Worley