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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

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
<[e-mail]>
El 03/07/2013 23:37, "Eric Rescorla" <[e-mail]> escribió:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]>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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>