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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Fri, 21 June 2013 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC9B11E817D for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.661
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z7d7ij0GR4qp for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CDE11E8173 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id cm16so406779qab.7 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=MtLoh2viYD0ln4i65DhwIFhnGHvhn61tfUhUnNBFEXo=; b=Lzx4A+h1ks4VbMZhFyzAENOHYPVXV8VVFHRQkqfMoFcQEFiRvAuFU9QvRknf4bX+XM HF7t+eWJHqWi8MnIkA2NbnfGk8qpLKUBrMhYJ1ud7n491LUMMgFqeVqeH1bOWbYixuqZ vg8K5dyzbxopf+wuQsx2S7ZgASMfYNjhQr96doUmx/9s9BfMK7X7t4zhEVGnWUXPFJhQ pF20U1QLaYBkC/0jNLM/Zl9GvXXyayRFqIrTn2HVKAHcd2U4wsfl/LjUvDkEpQz+D5OC AvpokSLZrh2x0c9ro+L8xfbzjzP5t2msjo6nlL/8YfZ8rlIYuuGTusuzwvuCbn/DjThk E8eQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r20mr13600675qef.54.1371809965230; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:05 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Bossiel thioriguel <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5py/R3IQTq6PqnxpoMG0er+5jzSpHSfXlKerMR8IO+MFeLB9OkNysz/z4JLMU1JkL+Vy/
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:19:26 -0000

2013/6/21 Bossiel thioriguel <>:
> Using the current WebRTC we have managed to *easily* build almost all kind
> of applications: click-to-call, SIP/IMS clients, gateways to PSTN, MCUs,
> Telemedicine systems...and haven't seen any major issue. It's true that it's
> not natural to "hack" a blob SDP to implement features like hold/resume,
> media update, early media ... but it works and there are demo applications
> showing it.

Hi Bossiel,

Current WebRTC is based on SDP mainly for "SIP interoperability", so
obviously it is "easy" to build like-SIP-based applications. Anyhow in
most of the apps you mean I'm pretty sure that there are just a few
SDP exchanges, probably just the initial SDP offer/answer and some
other for "hold" / "unhold" purposes (which requires SDP mangling).

Now let's assume that WebRTC is much more than
SIP-business-into-the-web, let's assume that WebRTC is RTC for the Web
rather than Web for RTC.

> For the current WebRTC, Google open sourced their engine, produced drafts, a working implementation in chrome, a mailing-list to help developers, demo applications, documentation... we just want to see the same from any company asking to rewrite everything.

A company? AFAIK this is a IETF WG, not a company. I am not speaking
on behalf of any company or business.

Is there anyone not involved in SIP/PSTN business which feels
comfortable with the SDP-based specs of WebRTC?

Best regards.

Iñaki Baz Castillo