Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

[Neil Stratford <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Tim Panton <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> So, to paraphrase (and make sure I understand) - your argument is that if
> we don't use SDP,
> we will have to specify all the fields and associated meanings for every
> codec we expect to support.
>
> If we do use SDP, then we just point at existing usage and say - 'there,
> use that' .
>
> If we use a subset or variant on SDP we can say - 'use that, except for
> this bit to do with port allocation'.
>
> Is that a fair (if informal) summary?
>

It's interesting to look at how XMPP/Jingle addressed this concern in
XEP-0167:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#sdp

The SDP definitions are mapped to name/value pairs where possible according
to defined rules.

Neil