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

[Bossiel thioriguel <[e-mail]>]

+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 <[e-mail]>
À : Robin Raymond <[e-mail]> 
Cc : "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 
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.

+1



2013/6/20 Robin Raymond <[e-mail]>


>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.
>
>-Robin
>
>
>
>Christer Holmberg
>20 June, 2013 
12:55 AM
>Hi,
>
>
>
>At

 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 :)
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]> 
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb