Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications

[Neil Stratford <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> A truly well structured API here will imply, at least in my view, at least
> a common model for negotiation and a common set of structured data to be
> passed via this javascript-implemented protocol.  Doing that without
> defining a standard protocol is actually harder than doing it while defining
> a protocol.
>

I disagree that there is any requirement for a common model for negotiation.
By all means ensure that the API enables the implementation of SIP and
XMPP/Jingle, but to start with a single protocol and use that to define the
API will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary limitations in the API.


> I've heard the various arguments against defining one, but none of them
> seems to stand up against the base fact that you can have a standard
> protocol--known to be available--without restricting the ability to create
> proprietary protocols using the same API.
>

Which is true, so long as you don't let your protocol choices leak into the
API definition, which is unfortunately already the case with SDP.

Neil