Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 15:30 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 4506421F9CF5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 rVDrTI6mRJ1r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E8E21F9CF3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id bj3so4515566pad.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:30:56 -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=EUaNA/040uX7zwmyBDIH0s/pJsgh9g51YdcXsZde9ck=; b=M8DAOLrfT5dBltXNmtNEE8LA+crR4QrSfbPIA+guGtlX2Av9qRgZeRWjg4Zpb/+ESQ yoyfM+EhK9tLK5geNQCtDaQadZ05DuMvpgWVLs3C2wUYFH60+I1QxomaKnQXzipGmBvr 0SPMlHARv+tPzPWK/C8c3iS/6HcRyH3fvCONq3szshtvyaSC7LXa8VVJVlSNsAg6fvCu +A0SPnIj+O8ImKdSV5mzuCR7qCGVHZQTjDqRfvVzpbOJtfvfe49Ab4VL63MsgSuLjeG7 JDTZjwqPRId2S98zWuYrhMOBwAuJsDiYUth+dJT4mP/ZifkJh4KaTanujfnZ3EU64eGE OYRg==
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=EUaNA/040uX7zwmyBDIH0s/pJsgh9g51YdcXsZde9ck=; b=QpVVfmMZiNZOkgN/z4OJ1sJCIYR44/2Q650bvX4Seb3467lJH/oNhQYm7+L9Uk5KNX O5yYxjZshieEiXWYITVfxqqoXY03WyjhdQYlG3mj1l7fHo3WRIzE7MsgXf/IaNdOn3Vq Rju4Wv1HDyHtjfbqdnr3+yKGQLX1FjR4aoFUO7wTnezPLAtEo+0FzDPcjv4mlUHD4Mtf tRHTYtRsWvN7GMGhUPCwAitI5Mf8W9laKcFvE6MV12I2/mQ+nPnxniGeG1npLh8cOrde JaBSUc9mxJL640XhD4Z3H8Z+GvTsMmkEDojH3fMbbb8XUuhycYdPTt5PLAsf5kuSFTzZ QtMg==
X-Received: by 10.66.142.5 with SMTP id rs5mr16200145pab.168.1373297456338; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.78.169 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkvMCWVnAwhi16Ozf3CSC7i1_4LRoVBU-9g6cHkuuoJQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51CA6FEE.6030702@hookflash.com> <093EDF0B-AFEA-4979-AC72-23AF2FC5E8C7@oracle.com> <CALiegfkvMCWVnAwhi16Ozf3CSC7i1_4LRoVBU-9g6cHkuuoJQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:30:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEJ5nPLr9pd9kMtnrvkNOEU8v-uWP2Rqk-qB3gtrY1Y9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11330f2a0e7bee04e101bbff
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFux2MrsLrk207KzMyjcj73JcBWhcF7oBUz6I8fBZTRadudny1vtPuUizlT5+OMpZrWEMQYH55nR8Bkt454hjVMAnb+eRntyEcUsE/pw/wg3SYwZR0HoxwXQ35mTvMCdT+hIaVcK1wv6oqM0vFdcq+bzlmplj6+a4yPLN3/m0jR8PMuYUv8pu8CuR6Scf21cVUUOAo
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:30:57 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2013/7/3 Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>om>:
> > You might also want to cite some of the reasons noted in this old draft:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-01
>
> Well, section "3. Defining a WebRTC Protocol in the Browser" says:
>
>
>    9) Using the SDP offer/answer model provides a more rigid API
>      interaction model, enabling Browser vendors to perform less
>      testing and provide more robust implementations than exposing all
>      discrete components to a Javascript API would.
>
>    10)   Using a higher-level API model, such as would be done with an
>      SDP offer/answer model, means the cross-browser vendor-specific
>      variances would be reduced.  Exposing a lower-level API would
>      inevitably lead to some differences in different browsers due to
>      differences in their architectures/implementation.
>
>
> Time to reconsider those assertions? ;)
>
>
>
These assertions assume we have only two choices:  1.  A high level
SDP-based API or 2.   A low-level API that "[exposes] all discrete
components".

Was a "middle ground" API ever considered?  One which  doesn't require
everything go through SDP, and also doesn't expose "all discrete
components"?   A sort of "best of both worlds" approach?   I'd be
interested to know if such an ideas was proposed and rejected or simply
never proposed.



> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>