Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 03 July 2013 21:42 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 E1B4D11E8219 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 WY1qLaiNoA0e for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC9611E80EE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f11so450165qae.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=6Kw4pbS1dYpNdR0Z6O7hehKOx5jfGLqYW+ZFBiyPNrI=; b=XaUrPdJQKORdhRPk3P5qkYzTaSHCN0OaiOKUZKHTepIM9zSHgVm5g0xDEjVRMAZWS6 NyBtNP/q+RQ+loy3qr1jCTauAvRzh4GeXioUUmj42yCAdYEdEmpbZyBMmwclXxdYP9dd tFM8Q81A0jRJ3rBOvD/YYuGjcu6EOcC6zYvXUYkEG74T/LClCL+fMmqvCl58+wXwRP3/ TFfctny23EW8AlTpBnMx0nh3Z14nICmoZ16b31tTqPyG887cJiiH0rhT+3aBHI82+3zu PFOcErCnBku15Sse0lboAG/3ZwmE5FCRz+1eQuvaVX8wq3mR9qt1UZdsHG+IAYCLEmNI gUWw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.116.176 with SMTP id jx16mr3659333qeb.52.1372887761814; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:42:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d8b765c1da804e0a25760
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlD/NxKag28nMRW9Ml7RhR+K4wZe6ZdwKYTVy3ZSC9p/9I9iQhx0PPY1F0o3zvhtWN4RTMA
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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, 03 Jul 2013 21:42:47 -0000

So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with Jingle is
just impossible. And this is supposed to be the API proposed to W3C...

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;
El 03/07/2013 23:37, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com>; escribió:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Camp #0:  I've used SDP for years and I'm very comfortable with it.
>>>>  Using SDP as the control surface really helps my use case, which is legacy
>>>> interop.  Defining an API without SDP would be too much work, and probably
>>>> fail.  Look at what happened with SDPng!  Supporting all these advanced use
>>>> cases doesn't seem worth it.   If developers are doing that much advanced
>>>> stuff, they can learn to munge SDP.  It isn't that bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm... That's not my understanding of the situation at all.
>>>
>>> Rather, I believe the expectation is that you shouldn't have to modify
>>> the
>>> SDP but rather there should be API points to cover most of the use cases
>>> that people want. This isn't to say that all those API points exist or
>>> that
>>> they work or whatever.
>>>
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>>>
>> I'm glad to be wrong here.  Is the phrase "you shouldn't have to modify
>> the SDP but rather there should be API points to cover most of the use
>> cases"  the consensus of the working group?
>>
>
> I thought it was, but I'm not the chair, so maybe you could ask Harald or
> Stefan.
>
>
>  Along with that, is "use Jingle for signalling" included in your set of
>> "most of the use cases"?
>>
>
> No, I don't think it is, since it's not SDP.
>
> Maybe I could phrase this differently: It was my understanding that you
> should have
> API points to get the PC to emit SDP that would express the policies,
> preferences,
>  actions, etc. that the application wants. If you want something that's
> not SDP you would
> need to gateway.
>
> This may or may not be a satisfactory state of affairs, but it was the
> rule I was using
> (based on what I thought the WG expected) for when use cases needed new API
> points.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>