IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 CF54C21F9D57 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 q+014wtlDgPB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x231.google.com (mail-ve0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D2021F9C01 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cz10so538550veb.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ltbre0jK5foPCMT2iHcA/nTPUYDIGbPpQW9Z4pK/LFk=; b=plR2vVS+Z9tUClWZa4GCYiiSjz5hUqtTUykCTYTvWa8TcYf1R/+fYNl8V0L0nLyyVG bTC85fV5SqdQhQmY4YEDcgp33qGc3EPofY54xTzShSSILRIboOMc9dwW7C5qWiMhOtDR rer4qGT1uMsQLyeT+3+hG6UrOOtYHWkLwxqnMEXGeG+jSCKznj3hoJyU4MWZWmseFXn4 vGuDX/tWi4oi4LooD2VR90YvmS/deBi+vPujKk1P4VPEw+ocbkjDU3X7Js/rdKX2zNER WeIK82CCfFu6OpmvB99m4IYLavmBtnyyQusiVoopb170e9Qa2Y4SIZjzsKF3LDTjY1zk RkZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ltbre0jK5foPCMT2iHcA/nTPUYDIGbPpQW9Z4pK/LFk=; b=BRfb2gokDlAKdLrMoAsuOyl+M4BIkV+kPrBExtQ0uJ2wX72iGM8H0PWKpGl5SctOrP NfAVbwOcKlX0wkTgaXPpbm7St0yDDM0neBt9Cag/nt7hx09rnOMCQCVMLOTwQ+LXcjnG m0tbfsqTB7BJJzVUqrk6qX/G7rQ97dBlvR9OF0IyH1dpAKLdKPSdApc+AJeWrwXBqRQK BIfyHlr2qLIBO82aSPja6M8F9hNb3/P8RSa5uff/ALMV8C9ClBhrRboiKUHbymlDITcg BP6FGA5NNgjBsIuRsrMVNcz672SmIzlZyAi43MWrT7oTHckmS9QdZVRzjfa8/PaiA45m lppA==
X-Received: by 10.52.23.49 with SMTP id j17mr755327vdf.56.1372886799401; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.59.71 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:25:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307c9f32fef1bd04e0a21db7"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlJnO3w3ceppMR8QttsqolVGIaQv/XNh605ifHJvgMFqZIGLiXlE2YIt9PN0CYYINMAj54yMe+vCEgBJcIwIAL4q/yQunh3U+VgzcncoXIeV58QNZt6vZ2ITLddxQV7vF0s1OvLQjMhd4XlTs7iadLdiPjTTtFZfaS3TsU9Zzy3p6x7u8rPk1CVf2R9+ettVFNunBdX
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <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 21:26:41 -0000

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?  That would be (good) news to me.
 Because if it's true, then we can just go ahead and add those API points
and make the developers happy.

Along with that, is "use Jingle for signalling" included in your set of
"most of the use cases"?

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status