Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Mon, 01 July 2013 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
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 0D35411E81DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 qlo+OsFSdadW for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DFC11E818B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7ef76d000004bbc-36-51d18e13dc9f
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2F.78.19388.31E81D15; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:11:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.6]) by ESESSHC023.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:11:31 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model
Thread-Index: AQHOcibV+w71mSCXSkiQxLiPakqfXQ==
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:11:30 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C309655@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <51CA6FEE.6030702@hookflash.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C3093E0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfmsahUM6w00thQSCu3CpKse2C3LKSb1LzkwodNgKTOK0g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.146]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra5w38VAgzdnJSym77Ox+N3dwW6x 9l87uwOzx7mG9+we57cuYfJYsuQnUwBzFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfGn9ZWloJ93BULv65kbmBc ydnFyMEhIWAice90ShcjJ5ApJnHh3nq2LkYuDiGBw4wSnb2/2UASQgILGSUeb0oFsdkEAiW2 7lsAFhcRsJS4MfcmM4jNLOAj8WTHV3YQW1jARqLvw2cmkPkiArYS29pYIcr1JOZ8XglWwiKg IrG0A2IMr4CvxP3GN+wQe7czSnyfughsJiPQQd9PrWGCmC8ucevJfCaIQwUkluw5zwxhi0q8 fPyPFcJWkvix4RILRL2exI2pU9ggbG2JZQtfM0MsE5Q4OfMJywRG0VlIxs5C0jILScssJC0L GFlWMbLnJmbmpJebb2IExsbBLb8NdjBuui92iFGag0VJnHez3plAIYH0xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLS nNTiQ4xMHJxSDYzucZ/Ws8lkKOnFxn48LWK9lZ1pYWBSc9C0FxInFq6WF+wIlJeq/OU3aW03 9/JJcmIr3mx9mZN4IOvYUcu5Vz4suLIt37VeWH9jl3pzZcAcYSbDDKEv4TLbGESTw//zT9iT dZ/NiSn/dybP6xmLHSvObA76YpRoZfpL7I+YvIiSoc7uHYIHupRYijMSDbWYi4oTAdrCHHZb AgAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:11:38 -0000

On 2013-07-01 11:01, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
>
> 2013/7/1 Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>om>:
>> 4.5: This really underlines the need to specify in detail what the
>> allowed SDP variations are (or, if we remove SDP, to specify any other
>> mechanism to exchange the things needed to set up RTP and other things
>> going on the wire).
>
> The draft http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-00.txt
> clearly proposes that NO media description format is required in the
> wire. This is not about SDP vs SDP+XML vs SDP-NG.
>
> The draft explains (in section 5) why it is not needed to mandate how
> media info must be sent in the wire. Instead, let the developer to
> retrieve the media/transport information from the API and send it in
> the wire in the way it wants.

I still think my point is valid. If the app i browser A retrieves this 
media/transport info using the API, and sends it to the peer app in 
another browser B, it must still mean the same for both browsers.

True, we're struggling with this part for SDP. But removing it and only 
have API calls does not get us away from defining exactly what those 
calls mean.

>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>