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

[Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/7/2013 1:46 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
>> I do not think redefining session description is the best approach.
>> Having access to direct API methods that control send codecs, send media
>> types, resolution, etc  is easier to understand and to program. I think
>> even simply exposing the API from Voice and Video engines in current WebRTC
>> implementation would be a more usable API then the current offer/answer SDP
>> based one.
>>
>
> There is an existing proposal published by my employer which is along
> these lines. It might be helpful if the folks who are just now realizing
> what the issues are with dealing with both the complexity of the format of
> SDP as well as the embedded offer-answer semantics could review that and
> see how closely it matches their needs, rather than starting from a clean
> sheet of paper.
>

I assume you're referring to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120821/#rtcsdptype  ?

I like some of the approaches taken in this proposal.
I like that there are actual objects for RTCSdpType and
RTCSessionDescription .
There are, however, no functions to manipulate a SDP yet.

I assume that the API discussion has to happen in the W3C and not here? To
be honest, I am not overly fussed as to what format the browser deals with
- SDP or JSON - though the latter is a more natural browser format. I do,
however, care what the Web developer has to deal with.

Cheers,
Silvia.