Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 11EFC21F8A6E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:12:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 tlR6C9oNNJFt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x232.google.com (mail-vb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8F221F89DC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ft2so362792vbb.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:12:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=hNlRNktrLghJDcMsZl290vkRRA+tMJb42vxmwc3rl6U=; b=ZMLDwUT9Y8QzvA8bAI0grhYOBINDScl+8puvzzEePyJBbK5KLRQ5Gtu0RDp4wOPWfc pBFzHXByBlqfNvUNMmz2MON8XwOr5o4RtJ7omTLNtoYC3zpQzOCtN7ozv+F2W+jW5GDs YBMk5MSolyy6zJosOWUQrT2wf2fr5oBPl8zebVpBfXd12DIGi2Dkohxs/ioFI8l4ljNc 0AgZ6+x8y/RQ6L2IsU0eNB3YweB94wsxY/HLt29VQX9Xe/v6dLkegQR7e4mBXdmqTgJA g43zzFUsO3ewDDA7kTk1uw7qKPVRJR30/zGthBNSdCVYTS0cEiR9AZ/vl7pYEVKLT2z6 bKAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=hNlRNktrLghJDcMsZl290vkRRA+tMJb42vxmwc3rl6U=; b=OnmYdgX9crm0UV6hy0AkE5E6J+x4zOPAN3khIYRptkbW5+tdnIMwL4XNOsX/Z06zLl 7VGcHL/YIB+cgirg9R11zV5ukQv3kzfC2XtwMM1rE1Jo88UvmuFk/obzu2uRWlGDFN57 tnwRZ4GkpyRTRsBsoXor83tJeVhhVHdvnvf/R/HWBDER/dngEDKJxBpU1RGuSa6crgpj 5MEBwyCiOJG+CRpgHb+olrWc8NrYPwHuMIQsba1PVEHDR7N1SZAu/whMwyGzZ7LNkoso wRsMO1p5envAWKdkuvC0gZtkUmr+o3wkxcwQeefEs3Mr31A+6uRlzXj//ojXwmy6Lvem pFCQ==
X-Received: by 10.52.19.200 with SMTP id h8mr11747337vde.60.1362690768982; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:12:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.49.102 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:12:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2nz=NZb=UaevUSS7GRSBpvn-v9_=QHz6iddnZzyx5-TSQ@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>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:12:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUETwfY7ZvaXO_1Bq8gs8pOTgALQE8FiimrUX7sfuEpDsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxDwebVN/rITNjI3rhh3sU2of5DGcT4RB1WPJU3hfbMXF6Wvb7KFk2gzLEJZUz2nZ1PM/G4RNBfO2J1jmJ3ijTrJjrmsrtXNBAtgYNp4JdGaoJIxscfxGhbvIDFRs8HerJail0WnR/FXZ7Mn7ZlqfFJGZte69tSNSAAPepI+RtywOS6il+MmpGGWstNyLGblp/d6kd
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 21:12:51 -0000

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
>