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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 08 July 2013 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 DFFB521F9A51 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 qQu5gsANmtGs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9CE21F924A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-vpn5-1558.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAE2D4011B; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:46:24 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <51DAD083.8000901@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:45:23 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
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> <CAJrXDUEZixeAsDc42WY-kZvrpA-p4s1sjET-qzxZ2VH9x7yc5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUEZixeAsDc42WY-kZvrpA-p4s1sjET-qzxZ2VH9x7yc5Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 14:45:34 -0000

On 7/8/13 8:40 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca
> <mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net
>     <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
> 
>     > 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.
> 
> 
> I think he meant "impossible without SDP munging", which I think is
> undeniable.

What do you mean by "SDP munging"?

As we know, various things are being added to SDP. The Jingle specs have
not necessarily been updated yet to track those changes, although
proposals have been made on several points. If folks want to keep Jingle
in sync, that work would need to happen at the XSF. Feel free to join
the jingle@xmpp.org list if you have proposals:

http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jingle

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/