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

[Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]>]

I think Plan A vs Plan B is very different than No Plan vs.  CU.  The first
is "we both agree on a text blob;  what goes in the text blob?".  The
second is "let's add a few methods" vs.  "let's through out everything and
start over".

If the WG decided "Let's throw out everything and start over with WebRTC
2.0", I'd be happy to help work on a "CU NoPlan" in that context.  On the
other hand, if the WG said "Let's try adding methods in an incremental way
that allow JS to avoid SDP in WebRTC 2.0", I'd be happy to work on that as
well.  But I don't think CU-RTC is going to work well in the latter, since
the authors categorically reject incremental improvement.






On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >>>> Why aren't we using the JavaScript object model for control of
> components instead of serializing our control requests via SDP/whatever
> format and hoping that it worked?
> >>>>
> >>> That's a great question. Have you read the CU-RTCWEB proposal? Is it
> any closer to what you imagined the RTCWEB API might be?
> >>>
> >>> My "NoPlan JS API" proposal also allows control of components without
> serialize control via a format, if the JS chooses to
> >>> do so (SDP is still there if JS wants).  It only does so for media
> streams, not for transports, but it allows incremental improvement to the
> API.
> >> So, IF we decide to remove SDP and Offer/Answer, we'll end up arguing
> about "Plan C(U) vs No Plan"? :)
> >
> > I think we already are :).
>
> 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
>
>