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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 2EC9021F9CB3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, 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 4M39DA6HrutQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED8B21F8EEA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y10so9078177wgg.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:32:27 -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:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=BCn3pcvDA1LvpycK5hhimWy4JzagX6FC/QXPwRXxeGo=; b=Fr8S4HN/FvWBe1b4QOOA74rLLBLdkqZu4PIRC0PZhxbkE4M56rQpiIM+lv049J9Sav A9E8Szc9HO+p2QSCIIS83//YrP7Mtsj/ktecncGQNU4KAN2I1Xmso7k4j+7JoZ/0YboH eq1kF02YkWnmG2SGQOsz8DIgWyLK2/Xq7ysu1nbYxuCnSmXCI33RAcZJwt0SrkuGDqq/ RmvuJ2iKTk9/KK1yCuJ7K76TtixeGZnd0zWj8CenkLn9YY3RQD27V4sI8uXpX85Jr+SY BpcbKgvGeSATVL5Xx3VXb69bB3MTFEav5HrtFT6TdwsjiHUx8KMInY1pf1fapVUFNjCm b2jA==
X-Received: by 10.194.240.169 with SMTP id wb9mr12248300wjc.90.1373301147812; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb9sm56214433wid.2.2013.07.08.09.32.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u53so3778607wes.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.173.71 with SMTP id bi7mr12756439wjc.2.1373301146083; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMVC1kJJubunTsy_wgS=AjZjCiajvbjMYpLmihVp+U2Dg@mail.gmail.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> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30BC0F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtKLMf_d=8GSMrqfNhDHPe9MFP2ZTKzZHFn9CyMr-gSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C30C833@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvGfkgRp6tXwbOu_kVteHiBBqsyR5ixH18FMKjCNGO8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281057BD4@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com> <CAD5OKxuBmZxvDXD2Doc-7HH2sSK2neZH7v-W2XS_R+RTBkwveA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMVC1kJJubunTsy_wgS=AjZjCiajvbjMYpLmihVp+U2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:32:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxutv8x2Y40+JXQgbCLXd9N_KaW4ca95izMp5=xsNuG6Yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112cf9afb6a9704e1029637
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfkbgQRabBiORNGx3o2kZa2vHXmD5hWl8qOHTYPCDV6zUGYlqAU1vxWThggXip8537spj7
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 16:32:43 -0000

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:

> Yes, this matches my understanding as well. However, I believe there was
> also
> general agreement that most things one would want to do should be
> doable without modifying SDP.
>


"Should be doable" being the operative word. We are not there yet. We need
both new API types (like capabilites) and more settings for existing API
methods(more constraints).This also means either a lot of API extensions in
the future (with new API extension for each new SDP based feature) or
always having SDP as a fallback API surface.  If this is done right we can
just keep constraints and get rid of SDP altogether.

______________
Roman Shpount