Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 07 March 2013 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 159A221F8C06 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:17:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 MAcAltCLG7Ga for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f52.google.com (mail-qe0-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B97121F8B1C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id s14so591420qeb.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:17:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=ITP34KVsPH7AE47QqBZF0cYRFUHt+aRgY9Ut32Oqb0s=; b=WNJv0bJtXV36Q96s+sK9xyPh5EZKbRH/cxb6Sb74rwPlh8Oo1od8YyLl+Iisgsf7Zx mIqkB6rLTNGelDQsSpCOX1yrXHGHlz2thQaVx/CkhmgceQQ2YhE/is/oLcp5rzUsB/Gt 4zpF4y+4ttreHzVGVx0uU8OpuO34nIzOqZOWO5f9hEHoCequvSDNTc0q4/fedkWfA7oQ Y1PaAMuCcPmh4XJF0VMxRafnW7vHetPxiovLJYEoCsfXwaQ+HEp+mSsTK8DwN0ofk4ZM 277sZvmkkhGM8O7Pp4ZGvGbM4vvZBz+rj/LVEGegRtI2iF7TkjQ+8XFPNbZfflxv1hT1 JT+A==
X-Received: by 10.224.33.140 with SMTP id h12mr381649qad.73.1362691050770; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:17:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.12.233 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:17:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUGqxDxS5=_YnLOWVT6xOgXYuspGS5U2gXevc+PP2vLdHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <B9549E2E-6E68-4F34-A9C0-1F050285A70A@acmepacket.com> <CAJrXDUGSMfQ=SNrSxKVvay=4JUXHULy0cO2pRN9+iFJ23doWZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUHvcsuN6vXs8wku_aUrs-siHdn2wBDOJBgpgDPJySgdSg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMt7vaMnhcDD0-U7n6Hn-T=sHcGUGEV4=vAs8DVcoi-CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUGqxDxS5=_YnLOWVT6xOgXYuspGS5U2gXevc+PP2vLdHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:17:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfnZKVOgmh_5Qb2HeXuAL1BdxDc=U-=t1NfEEMC4DHMUew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1kngEWHUTPlgNw61JGzgZpYmk2dxtGCSTJc9MUipyL8Fqvyph1nxhK/EGPaeWwTWrb2Y4
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP - Lower level API minus SDP
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:17:32 -0000

2013/3/7 Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>:
> Anti-SDP camp: methods=low-level methods   and   format=none

What does "format=none" mean? There should be some kind of "format" to
tell the remote peer our video codec preferences, ICE candidates and
so, am I right? This is not about passing a URL to the remote.

That's exactly what SDP attempts to achieve but SDP is too flexible
and unmanageable.


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