Re: [rtcweb] New language (was: ... WebRTC JS Object API Model) (UNCLASSIFIED)
"Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil> Mon, 01 July 2013 19:28 UTC
Return-Path: <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
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 B7E2711E824B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YUHtT5zJUyMx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B5A11E81B4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3H.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.149) by edge-cols.mail.mil (131.64.100.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:28:19 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP9B.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.10.175]) by UCOLHP3H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.149]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:28:18 +0000
From: "Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] New language (was: ... WebRTC JS Object API Model) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thread-Index: AQHOdo0W4p5/jY2SQ0CTa1Uyqx+u2plQLeSA
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:28:18 +0000
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF49B13F7A@ucolhp9b.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <CABkgnnV6ss8cs0GRjkKZ1rDG76F6ZBRoPpm7Td7gUGoZnMzkvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV6ss8cs0GRjkKZ1rDG76F6ZBRoPpm7Td7gUGoZnMzkvA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.62.4]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01CE766F.9B580F10"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New language (was: ... WebRTC JS Object API Model) (UNCLASSIFIED)
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 19:28:33 -0000
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Yes, the problems with capability negotiations with SDP had been well-known for the folks when H.323 (H.245) and SIP (SDP) were debated and when SIP RFC 3261 was created. Later on, SDP O/A RFC was created to help SDP to have some negotiation capabilities. Again, SDP could not provide any mechanisms for setting up of the multipoint conferencing call dynamically where media bridging is needed evolving from the two party point-to-point call that does not need any media bridging. Later on, it was felt impossible to modify SDP for multipoint conference call dynamically. So, it was decided that let us define a conference focus that is the central point is well known a priori to all and people will dial to that conference focus to set up the centralized multipoint conference call statically only in a star-like configuration. That is, we gave up the setup of the distributed conference call with sa mesh like configuration dynamically because of limitations of SDP signaling architecture. Now, if we keep the option that makes the WebRTC API is not 'hardwired' to SDP as the ONLY one as mandatory for media signaling protocol for media negotiations, then it will open up a huge innovative opportunities for all of us in the future to have much more richer multimedia conference capabilities. So, let us keep SDP as one of the many alternatives for negotiations for signaling of media capabilities (as opposed to ONLY one as mandatory that stops all future innovations knowing SDP's all those limitations - we cannot block our future innovativeness for real-time multipoint multimedia communications - future of real-time multimedia communications are yet to be imagined through creativity of the future generations). Best regards, Radhika -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Thomson Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:58 PM To: Ted Hardie Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: [rtcweb] New language (was: ... WebRTC JS Object API Model) On 1 July 2013 11:17, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Honestly, I have read it and I don't see how you avoid mandating some > standard interface between the JS and browser. That needn't be SDP, > but if it is causing the two sides to negotiate candidate transports > and emit RTP, it's going to be hard going to avoid it being SDPNG. This is an important argument, but it's only correct up to a point. And that is misleading. SDP does a lot of things that an API can do in far simpler ways. Take BUNDLE, or the plan A/B/No question. We all know what these need to do, but we are encumbered by existing SDP - which is no single thing - in trying to reach a conclusion. Interconnectedness makes SDP hard. Harder than it needs to be. The main advantages of a new form of expression come from its ability to isolate problems. For instance, separating transport establishment was clearly a big win for Jingle in terms of flexibility, simplicity, capabilities. But those examples speak directly to your point. A new "language" might be unencumbered in a way that might make addressing these problems easier, it might even be more capable, but it is still just a new way of saying the same old thing. Offer/answer is the problem. It's a contrivance that can be chosen or rejected depending on how you plan to interact with the API. That embeds a negotiation engine into the browser, along with all the machinery for how to negotiate everything that SDP expresses. Negotiation is an extra, a feature that the IETF decided to add to the API to make it "easier to use". That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't mandatory, but it's the only way to do anything. (In contrast, CU-RTC-Web provides a negotiation feature, but it's an optional extra.) So SDP truly becomes a problem when coupled to offer/answer. The way that features interact become a problem for standardization, not because they interact with each other - interaction problems are what engineers are for - but because they are negotiated. And it's not the SDP negotiation that is the worst: it's the negotiation of what it means. We all know what it means, but I'm certain no two people "know" SDP the same way. That means another sort of negotiation. And those negotiations require that those engineers be sent to places like the IETF to argue endlessly, or play at politics. --Martin _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
- [rtcweb] New language (was: ... WebRTC JS Object … Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] New language (was: ... WebRTC JS Obj… Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)