Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.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 14E2D21F9954 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 PTZDRGQnSDFq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E111C21F9921 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 10so12279213ied.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=yGXdYSVyoEepJkzSdpgzSZIxmg7mNkmqcmD72sYVrR4=; b=uAIcVVm/Vbbp5/LnkLXK4YfO0Swry263PEpl9MgIG9ueu+Dul37IRtSllb8IMxpCaX 4p71AWaPjgndmeJyWDDIGUnWsoiVYZtlxG953X5o/krfaPGuWVF5YHzmXfdlWA0JGycl pnuhG+HMWWyJDdPE5lO2y3Yp+LdkjBSLhXr62qrT7RjLmllP59HSzFcX6sx6YB4CAqJ5 p2uP3Da5kbMLbR5Q3al05vHqmhtIbw7mIGLZqh85MuLiwuupKsxv1EBEX9YuvC1BREGZ LTUDCBG3+sX6cbbl336P0s+BoUFiCcaKBkdhxVHRz5TmLvupNPoL5dHbBUdookk3UQ4i AOmQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.112.69 with SMTP id io5mr320504igb.27.1371609373419; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.170.104 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C051AB.6030505@makk.es>
References: <CAJrXDUHdoxLTsofiwLBdwBNnCCkCBgjSdbmLaXrNEPODMrsSVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp8n2m4VwkpbdGE+q73qqij5RDCB4Vb-Ui1LmGSx1zmv8TX2g@mail.gmail.com> <51BFFB65.2020203@jitsi.org> <CAHp8n2mD55CL5sVcSyvqNz_nzqtrwcfEXy_dU23wXGcV0PhR8A@mail.gmail.com> <51C051AB.6030505@makk.es>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:35:53 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kHS2KKF4tNiYhq6xMPjfSvqojVMhsmUSoz=yS1ZNBymw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Max Jonas Werner <mail@makk.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:36:15 -0000

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Max Jonas Werner <mail@makk.es>; wrote:
> Hej Silvia,
>
> On 18.06.2013 08:25, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at
> 4:17 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>; wrote:
>>> On 18.06.13, 03:00, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What I would like to see, though, is a bit different from what you've
>>>> proposed. In particular, the MediaFlowDescription object is the one
>>>> object that I believe is supposed to enable JS developers to  do "SDP
>>>> hacking" without having to understand SDP. Unfortunately, the way in
>>>> which it is currently written, this API doesn't help a JS developer
>>>> much. There are properties in that object like "ssrc" that mean
>>>> nothing unless you understand SDP.
>>>
>>> SSRC is really just a flow identifier and it actually comes from RTP, not
>>> SDP.
>>
>> OK, could we call it rtpflowId or mediaflowId or peerflowId or
>> something? And what exactly are the other identifiers?
>> (You will notice that I am really naive wrt SDP, sorry!)
>
> Do you really want to create a second "terminology world"? For people
> who don't know what SSRC means (because they don't know RTP) it may seem
> reasonable but to those who already know RTP you'd have to explain
> "yeah, rtpflowId is actually SSRC." So the term SSRC would have to be
> included in the spec anyway.

You can leave mention of SSRC to a comment in the spec next to rtpflowId.

> I'm not sure if having different names for the same thing would lead to
> less confusion.

If SSRC is the name it's given in SDP and we want to get away from
SDP, this would be a first step, wouldn't it?

Silvia.