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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 08 July 2013 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 B445511E819F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 2xpKNWa733lp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com (mail-qc0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C59B21F9ECE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z10so2142461qcx.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 03:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=48xLsXrBRPQ6eOQxsKfqLlAycT83Puv1hT1D0dFYL0w=; b=TtFOzpnKVi/tifscyceAzlwI+LZ3347ysnbVfIpfCJo1B0hHrq1nvE2N/xb951h7IA DnAjcasvWY49rAOZuZKIhLbBID51RjeouY1FLggeeTPz4P91kSdou2lfHlPmt7MiU4Ej W272pfGPBJGpgAfO81N5qYpRtub/+8KDiKMufuzrOmKDequzby+HVb+wb2VHRHily/XO DyFXubVFHEjtCnjN4DaBtxAhkdxzRNGflQHcPWboZK5F/2lGNYywm5doPEA3yD+ywuEx vsjrpQYrJO4uIYe3/dScQa1HXTo713CP9He2tfOx5+S7SmnwYWMbnfoJGICPspKgZ7Bi p8oA==
X-Received: by 10.224.22.67 with SMTP id m3mr18098804qab.36.1373279941550; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 03:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8B58E2AB-09B7-4816-8BC4-B932030E2ED2@iii.ca>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com> <8B58E2AB-09B7-4816-8BC4-B932030E2ED2@iii.ca>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:38:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfk7Jt005bE1SNnVD8vgDSmQTKPPPhrWKP05xsjGtgjxwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNC5GHxrZJIea2zQg6atIK2FhVnT5kvPmWOhDKpHniWY1ajOPeV3YB1+7RV5//4xHhzzDX
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:39:08 -0000

2013/7/8 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>;:
>> So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with Jingle is just impossible.
>
> The mapping of SDP to jingle is in the Jingle specs … I'm not express any opinion on this one way or another other but the authors of theses specs have always claimed Jingle fully mapped to and from SDP.

XEP-0167 defines a XML based SDP. Mapping it from/to plain SDP
requires, at least, having all the attributes of the SDP. Instead you
are proposing that the JS receives an opaque SDP blob from the
browser, so it must be parsed via JS if the app wants to convert it
into XML SDP.

It's really ugly and the worst specification for the Web.


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;