Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP

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
>

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