IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Wed, 19 June 2013 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 9AA0B21F92B7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Si9XeC6blKTg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACF321F90EF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [10.10.155.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722B0250041 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51C1EE64.1010109@matthew.at>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:46:12 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CALiegfkajJPxWZTzjYssP91VW+StStLpxoxGCkjOLKDMUWc0rA@mail.gmail.com> <51C0C1A0.9010107@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUGqSvsosZJhcRR-kCwEX1g_wvPnSZPmmcNwggk+Z9WNCA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWfV=5xBaRqAddqUURThs9J4T4+0HK4Ux07VA51r5oC3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFNGKvWHw-yqeApEdTeuqMNPTDxvdKZ2DuzANmcR2y2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C3AE500@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfk39prkSinDCisSqOAD8yJZuGUwLAMBabao7eHuhnAYcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUHe=vu2695xAkg2tKvQ7J5JNqraHCpY0rKx5rDQ0xCpiA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=GbR3K0dzMkaMWu88WdNY4JWQOmDPKeNfZQNuC5d4bog@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUHG7ENOu12SkRpXOik3ArEShPHAJhtOwYyR3UaSDvQFOA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=SiPkCD6b1Z+hkgkbtT1bbxtytWyYRxH3CUGDvJOztRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUF6uujp2jYCJgxp4kTctAFDWBBU-bWhJp4iMNDuc6A+3w@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfm_CLRBTmuJhjhrxNb5XPHGmFD9Lip37xYLVOBTxM6j_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUGqTGCR3reZ3=PkzQE7bhvjhyNGpdCiM-TCDnusNOxjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUGqTGCR3reZ3=PkzQE7bhvjhyNGpdCiM-TCDnusNOxjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050102040309010306010602"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:46:42 -0000

On 6/19/2013 10:35 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net 
> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>
>     2013/6/19 Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com
>     <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>>:
>     > Of course.  That's why I made a proposal that attempts to lessen
>     the pain
>     > (the NoPlan JS API).  I'm trying to help you :).
>
>     And don't you agree that the pain is even less if we entirely
>     remove SDP?
>
>
> I don't think it's removal of SDP that you want.  I think what you 
> want is a way to use the API without using SDP.  If the SDP is still 
> there, but you don't have to use it, you're still happy, right?

I want the offer/answer state machine to go away. I don't like an API 
that requires me to fight with it to get it to do what I want, no matter 
what kinds of things I put in (SDP, JSON, wahtever).

Why should I need to have the browser make an "offer" that I can then 
manipulate to turn into an "answer" just to get it to listen to some RTP 
and render it?

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email