Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Tue, 18 June 2013 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7871721F9C39 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2KzGUyT1XMf for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417DE21F9E85 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w7so2519724qeb.32 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ey8MxZfVqyvKfgb/Qq7H7jopxxgqLrbn216RjIzsil8=; b=KOUudWjXnq3JgqjuyMgfy7TtyRCGE+Fp1iDOaOqC8OAddoXhH/a1EXrWfTiHG/m4v9 K6lCwvG0E6/otpaRlCjzAhtFLuB2TyqGQ/m7TBLVVQsjbZhJXs2HFdTsF9ZCgaIoa7tw aSBhW8VlgzjGK9mewjwdx2lhv3F801oit3XEpWJeIccYB2yasgB7B7XID235dA07kGMV +fCaQbjkd106ZujfDyWFOMUvEzCK4Cpdra3tsa320B8KsWOE4GuwUNpWbY7GlCPqkfW3 niqaUwYwDnlRjsjcc6DNAq9rbpt/P7R+FDjYM1QKnSUWfhqPm9yIqdg4xy0veL6we2aK M1XQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q1mr11817867qec.50.1371566945703; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:48:45 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc100e95c94a04df6ed085
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhcldWsifG7d/h0hpTnjZtEKIpCaICBNs7hLeNerT0uhHTU4bnYPiKi21kdX5wrzSNAooO
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:49:10 -0000

2013/6/18 Robin Raymond <>

> SDP is clearly the WRONG technical choice. It was wrong from the start but
> I think there was a great misunderstanding that it was required or SIP
> wouldn't be compatible with WebRTC. Since the strong majority at the table
> were SIP guys because they are the "established" industry it became the
> 'way to do it' despite how horrible it is for the future. So here we are
> today...

Dear WG Chairs,

With all due respect, IMHO there is enough material to reopen the "SDP or
not SDP" debate so I would like to request it to the WG.

I would also appreciate that those in favour of mandating SDP as the core
communication for WebRTC explain their rationale again (given the number of
arguments against SDP and the frustration SDP is causing), and also that
they give arguments and responses to all the SDP related issues exposed in
this thread, that are nicely summarized in this mail:

Really thanks a lot.

Iñaki Baz Castillo