Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

[Tim Panton <[e-mail]>]

On 26 Apr 2013, at 14:34, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 4/25/2013 10:55 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> O
>> Yes, some gateway scenarios might be cheaper/easier with SDES, but I see the primary use-cases for WebRTC to be browser-to-browser, not browser-legacy.
>> 
>> Just because the charter was mistakenly written that way doesn't mean it is true.
>> 
>> I remind you that the actual title of the group is:
>> 
>> "Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (rtcweb)".  While you may disagree with the charter, please remember that it's not fundamentally a prediction about what the eventual balance of flows will be.  It's a statement about where the balance of effort in the group should go.   To me as an individual, it implies that we should not make trade-offs that optimize a non-browser use case at the expense of the browser use case except in pretty extraordinary circumstances.
>> 
> 
> Adding SDES helps a non-browser use case with no expense to the browser use cases except for the small amount of additional code.

I don't agree, it further complicates the existing hideous mess that is the SDP in the browser. Given where we are, we should be looking for ways to simplify that, not complicate it.

If anyone still thinks that SDP is just a blob not an API surface, take a look at the 'reference implementation' of browser to browser interop.
https://code.google.com/p/webrtc-samples/source/browse/trunk/apprtc/index.html

I count around 100 lines of javascript munging the SDP.

T.