Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option

Bossiel thioriguel <> Thu, 20 June 2013 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E7021F9D90 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VATJBwoa0aO5 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2A521E80C0 for <>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2013 22:44:57 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2013 22:44:57 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2013 22:44:57 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Received: (qmail 78289 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Jun 2013 22:44:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1371768297; bh=pSSMxiitxl2+tjNWqV6I+pMmez57uKK/Poicy8bQtNU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k2ybzFUispdZVP8fE5XLBNcn1XySENnZgFIdz16cIRVKGz7qw42Zo6cEQ/bVcXJi29v4iq7SrWBNehgevfLlfvbesmDhGHrzkM1AZPuKteQ10tC0x6oNN1FhV5pAsJj9cFLO6dluQmkqWtZU9xieneaHLT1ye6+HoWYgJrhgpz8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JNSHFOVmoODl/c8M/26Vxrph3RIfHpWOof6YMWEFNm9BVet8xRCI9bKCwcCOiqRw1tSzi0IxWkVNmUKwRr91UAKd+Fi/40IAj162a7CGlUQSk+KMmJUCDWAlX9+IsAuE/8LVGIATFa0ptluhMVVVntmmJ9lXHn8NpqYTi/ILEVE=;
X-YMail-OSG: l8B4KQQVM1npLCxCxssNFseJiSGVfLVU9BXmyuWJnYGgEI3 vAjUjekFBjrIcs3FIRIEkqjNukx0Env3vM4GQPguKISujfUD.UDFHc8idMxv HbdQeW80kDYE0XoeZbHT885ACzkvRaoW4rbMNxKZvj5gR9bRqgVvPjiJJYvC btDXuXDNIC7xgRCzy12n_iTFHaSSt7TwKXe4uLHGyjaGvapnEZS_lIs.CEZp sioyGNzmvotlBhN9SNQwY0u2K4qWGqdxnEGAnt6A4EKbokmYXhry8l9v6_Ss G4u7PcpEuiMDJPzCyQlqNLjsrZZr3kkD_GsCOzooX049mPG6iiKXgPxOE.Ij lPxGkIiEmNAdBXMjlY.W1liiTIJ418IpJq_er.3eOxA75Hc25BKRSaIylHUG JmcN1zVdsJspqXznmnlfPsX_tGyTZY9zgdl74LlVCGW2vmO42fIyewK2y1MS X01rtvNuQ0Cmg56_x8c4x1L9lAt_zKaLODG.f7mT6jneOdQMI70j6k8oLFPJ xj37WEUHdj.Ow7g7hXmk8NM54aRwsXEzOvEP.
Received: from [] by via HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:44:57 BST
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, KzEgZm9yIFNEUCAuLi5idXQgd2UgKERvdWJhbmdvIFRlbGVjb20pIHdvdWxkIHByb3ZpZGUgYSBnYXRld2F5IHRvIFNJUC9JTVMgd29ybGQgZm9yIGFueSBzdWNoIGRyYWZ0IGFzIHByb29mIG9mIGNvbmNlcHQuCkkndmUgc2VlbiBvbiBtYW55IHBvc3RzIG9uIG1zZG4gYmxvZyB0aGF0IGl0J3MgZWFzeSB0byBpbnRlcm9wIHdpdGggU0lQIHVzaW5nIENVLVJUQy1XRUIgYnV0IGhhdmVuJ3Qgc2VlbiBhbnkgZGVtby4KCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwogRGXCoDogScOxYWtpIEJheiABMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:44:57 +0100
From: Bossiel thioriguel <>
To: Robin Raymond <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1670751155-516304665-1371768297=:54026"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Bossiel thioriguel <>
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:45:04 -0000

+1 for SDP ...but we (Doubango Telecom) would provide a gateway to SIP/IMS world for any such draft as proof of concept.
I've seen on many posts on msdn blog that it's easy to interop with SIP using CU-RTC-WEB but haven't seen any demo.

 De : Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
À : Robin Raymond <> 
Cc : "" <> 
Envoyé le : Jeudi 20 juin 2013 23h27
Objet : Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC JS object API with SDP shim option

IMHO this is the way to go, something that will make feasible to build any *future* protocol that just relies in RTP but not on SDP O/A.


2013/6/20 Robin Raymond <>

>You are right. It's time for those of us who are begging for an 
alternative to SDP to come up with an alternative.
>I'm willing to lead such an effort. I just ask others to please have an 
open mind. I absolutely do understand the need for the SIP world to have
 an easy API they can use for SDP. But I also know SDP as an primary 
surface API is making anything beyond a basic calling a requirement to 
mangle SDP as a mechanism to control and obtain properties from an 
underlying media/RTC engine.
>I think there is a really good compromise. That is to provide an API 
that will adhere to the security policies needed (e.g. respects the need
 to require ICE establishment), but provides a simple shim API similar 
to what people already have with SDP but not be required to use for 
those who want to a more direct approach.
>There's no need to "burn" the entire thing to the ground and start over 
and that is _not_ my desire.
>This WebRTC thing must succeed but I can't imagine the W3C accepting our
 proposal for mangling SDP as a primary surface API to do common edge 
case scenarios. WIth an alternative proposal that satisfies both camps, I
 believe they could accept and we can stop the anit-SDP crowd grumblings
 once and for all.
>To that end I'm going to write two drafts:
>draft-raymond-webrtc-js-object-api-rationale-00 (to explain 
requirements, philosophy, methodology, benefits/pitfalls, use cases that
 are difficult/impossible with SDP+O/A)
>draft-raymond-webrtc-js-object-api-00 (to outline the actual API)
>Plus, I'll produce a shim on top of whatever API that will allow the SDP
 folks to have a simple SDP based API similar to what exists now but is 
entirely written in JavaScript to prove that this can be done.
>I really want a viable solutions for all interested in having a really 
good proposal API to ultimately become accepted by the W3C.
>If anyone has anything I should add to either of these drafts or wants 
to be involved, please contact me.
>Christer Holmberg
>20 June, 2013 
12:55 AM

 the virtual interim, the Plan A and Plan B folks were asked to sit down
 and try to come up with a compromise "Plan AB" solution.
>I guess
 it would be good if people that don't want SDP could try to come up 
with a compromise "CU No Plan" solution :)
>rtcweb mailing list

Iñaki Baz Castillo
rtcweb mailing list