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

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-03-08 15:01, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> Stefan, that is a very good point about the W3C.  Should Robin share
> his input with the W3C WG rather than this one?

He should at least send his input there as well.

Stefan

>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 2013-03-07 00:45, Robin Raymond wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we need SDP "blob" format in the exchange in the first place? All media
>>> can be done without SDP given an intelligent stream API. An API already
>>> exists to create these streams (albeit somewhat lacking if we remove the
>>> SDP 'blob'). This API helps "simplify" creating this blob for later
>>> exchange. But the blob is truly not needed. Each side could in fact create
>>> the desired streams, pass in the appropriate media information such as
>>> codecs and ICE candidates and chose the socket pair to multiplex upon.
>>> Yes, it's a bit more low level but it certainly can be done (and cleanly).
>>
>>
>> I think we are mixing up two different things in the discussion. One is
>> "what info to the two endpoints exchange to be able to set up connection(s)
>> and send and receive audio, video and data" and the other is "what APIs
>> should we use to control the settings".
>>
>> For the first part, the assumption has so far been SDP. I think we've all
>> realized now that the legacy of SDP gives us quite a bit of headache. I
>> think that splitting up signaling about connections (ICE candidates) from
>> signaling for media stuff (codecs, how different ssrc's correlate to
>> MediaStreamTrack's, ...) would simplify things a lot. But on the other hand,
>> it seems to me that we're really close to nailing those details. I'm pretty
>> sure that switching to some other format would cost more in time than we
>> gain.
>>
>> Also, remember that those session descriptions come with a flag saying
>> "sdp". This is intentional, it gives us the freedom to change format without
>> affecting the application in the future (as long as the application can
>> follow the normal createOffer/setLocal etc. procedures).
>>
>> When it comes to the API, that discussion is really for the W3C webrtc WG.
>> But as has been said by Tim and Harald already, the session descriptions
>> should never be changed in normal cases - there should be (and are) other
>> APIs for setting up how a MediaStreamTrack is transported over the network,
>> resolutions, etc. What is set in those APIs will be reflected in the SDP
>> created by "createOffer".
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-plan/
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with the draft in an SDP/SIP mindset but I'm going to take
>>> it from a totally different non-SDP angle. I have to say, the ideas
>>> presented are very good. I appreciate FEC, and synchronizing streams is
>>> cool. But SDP isn¹t needed to do it. Let me as the programmer worry about
>>> how to manage streams and the features on the streams and associations
>>> between the streams via an API only.
>>>
>>> Point 4, 5 and 6 in the specification all have to do with the complexities
>>> of having to describe the intentions of mixing in SDP. So no comment
>>> beyond ³don¹t use SDP².
>>>
>>> As for 7.1 ­ ³this is because the sender choses the SSRC² ­ only true
>>> because we are forced to use SDP and the assumptions is that it¹s SIP. We
>>> could have the receiver dictate what the sender should use in advance of
>>> any media. In our case, we establish in advance what we want from all
>>> parties before even ³ringing² the other party. We do not have SSRC
>>> collisions as we reversed the scenario allowing the receiver to pick the
>>> expected SSRC. Coordinating the streams is a problem with SIP because of
>>> how they do forking/conferencing. This specification forces this issue on
>>> those not using SIP. If SIP has problems with streams arriving early to
>>> their stateful offer/answer then let them worry about ³how² they intend to
>>> match the streams at a higher SDP layer and get this draft out of the
>>> RTCWEB track on the SIP track. To be clear, the proposal seems entirely
>>> reasonable and intelligent for SIP/SDP. But it¹s way to SIP centric for
>>> general use.
>>>
>>> On that note, what I do need in the API is an ability to dictate the SSRC
>>> when I create an RTP stream for sending (should I care to do that).
>>>
>>> 7.2 Multiple render
>>>
>>> Again this is an issue of SIP/SDP. We can control the SSRCs to split them
>>> out to allow multiplexing easily on the same RTP ports with multiple
>>> parties/sources. If given the primitives to control the streams just, this
>>> specification could be used to dictate how to negotiate issues in their
>>> space.
>>>
>>> 7.2.1 I¹m feeling the pain. How about just giving me an API where I can
>>> indicate what streams are FEC associated.
>>>
>>> 7.3 Give me API to give crypto keys to RTP layer. Let me handle the
>>> fingerprint and security myself beyond that.
>>>
>>> 8. Let's just say politely that I would not want to be the developer
>>> assigned to programming around all this stuff.
>>>
>>> Again, a perfect illustration why I don¹t want SDP.
>>>
>>> Media is complicated for good reason as there are many untold use cases.
>>> The entire IETF/W3C discussion around video constraints illustrates some
>>> of the complexities and competing desires for just one single media type.
>>> If we tie ourselves to SDP we are limiting ourselves big time, and some of
>>> the cool future stuff will be horribly hampered by it.
>>>
>>> My issues with SDP can be summarized as:
>>>
>>> - unneeded - much too high level an API
>>> - arcane format - legacy and problematic
>>> - offer/answer
>>> - incompatibilities
>>> - lack of API contact
>>> - doesn't truly solve goal of interoperability with legacy systems (eg.
>>> SIP)
>>>
>>> Regret that I did not have time for feedback earlier. As you can tell, I
>>> am not at all happy with where we sit today wrt requiring SDP. IMHO we
>>> need a lower level API if we are going to insist on using SDP.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can read my entire (long) rant against SDP here
>>> http://blog.webrtc.is/2013/03/06/sdp-the-webrtc-boat-anchor/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb