Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for this message I especially like the part about your 14 year old nephew writing WebRTC applications and I think we should take this as a sign of at least some success.

I have seen over the last year many demo's of WebRTC based applications developed both by major companies and by individuals some of which I assume know either nothing or very little about SDP.

The problems we are having in the IETF seem to be that we have lost sight of the original goals and got bogged down with the very complex requirements of some IETF participants.  I think it very likely that Bossiel's nephew is not very concerned about SSRC signaling and bundling and actually none of the very innovative WebRTC applications I have seen over the last year have needed these. However he probably will be concerned when his application does not work from his hotel or his office when he starts work. 

It just goes to show we have been diverted from what is really needed to complete WebRTC 1.0.

Let's concentrate on making sure all those innovative apps already written deployable before we start trying to satisfy the requirements of the mega application developers.


Andy




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Bossiel thioriguel
> Sent: 21 June 2013 10:40
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-
> opened
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm registered on this group since the beginning but this is my first
> post on this thread. So, I presente myself: Mamadou DIOP and I'm
> working for Doubango Telecom where we're building SIP endpoints,
> gateways, TelePresence/Telemedicine systems... all focused on
> SIP/IMS/LTE/RCS-e and open source.
> 
> What I'm talking about is not just feeling but something I've
> experienced.
> 
> Using the current WebRTC we have managed to *easily* build almost all
> kind of applications: click-to-call, SIP/IMS clients, gateways to PSTN,
> MCUs, Telemedicine systems...and haven't seen any major issue. It's
> true that it's not natural to "hack" a blob SDP to implement features
> like hold/resume, media update, early media ... but it works and there
> are demo applications showing it. If there is something more beautiful
> we just want to see it in action and test it.
> 
> Many participants here have said that what they want is something close
> to CU-RTC-WEB. Don't really know if they tried to build applications
> using it or not but in my case I have.
> My
> reference: http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/prototypes/cu-
> rtc-web-roaming/cu-rtc-web-roaming/info
> First on Windows 8 but haven't gone far as there is no documentation to
> get started. Then, OSX and luckily there was a readme with two links
> for testing (only one work). You need to open 3 pages (1 master, 2
> slaves) and check "send audio" on both slaves to header sound. Many
> javascript files and no documentation. It's said on these blogs that
> interop with SIP networks is easy but it's not my feeling ...I just
> want to see one :)
> 
> I don't really understand the issue with the O/A model. SDP or not SDP
> you'll always offer something and answer something. I'm I missing?
> 
> For the current WebRTC, Google open sourced their engine, produced
> drafts, a working implementation in chrome, a mailing-list to help
> developers, demo applications, documentation... we just want to see the
> same from any company asking to rewrite everything.
> 
> I'm not saying the current WebRTC implementation is perfect but I have
> seen my 14 year old nephew developing an audio/video chat for his
> homework :)
> 
> Regards
> 
> ________________________________________
> De : Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>
> À : Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>
> Cc : "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 juin 2013 1h24
> Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened
> 
> 2013/6/21 Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > On 20.06.13, 23:49, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> >>
> >> In JsSIP we are getting frustrated trying to implement the "hold" /
> >> "unhold" feature because it requires SDP parsing and mangling.
> Sending
> >> a re-INVITE with a modified SDP (now with a video track enabled)
> seems
> >> to work (after lot of pain) but we still miss a reliable API to know
> >> what the new SDP means. Instead we need to parse the SDP to detect
> >> global (or per m=) line attributes like "a=inactive" or "a=sendonly"
> >> etc etc. It's really painful.
> >
> >
> > I am having a problem following what you are trying to achieve here.
> In
> > JsSIP you seem to be going for a full SIP implementation in the
> browser. If
> > this is true and if this WG decides to remove SDP from the API
> surface, then
> > you would need to completely parse SDP in the JS and then convert it
> into
> > API calls. Similarly, when creating offers and answers you would need
> to
> > construct SDP all by yourself.
> 
> And we will do it very happily because then we will know what
> *exactly* we are sending on-the-wire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > So I am not sure why the SDP parsing in the current situation is so
> much of
> > a blocker for your use case.
> 
> Because regardless I am a SIP-guy, I understand that the main mission
> of WebRTC is to provide realtime communications *for* the WWW, and not
> to enable a new interface for like-telephony-bussines.
> 
> Today I'm doing SIP. Tomorrow I may be doing
> [[put_here_a_future_RTC_protocol_not_based_on_SDP]] and then I don't
> want to be constrained by decisions made today that force any future
> RTC protocol to deal with SDP O/A model.
> 
> :)
> 
> 
> 
> >> BTW I don't know wheter you support PlanA, PlanB or NoPlan, but I
> did
> >> a question (in this case about NoPlan) for which I got no response,
> >> and honestly I would like to see it replied regardless the solution
> >> uses PlanA, PlanB or NoPlan model:
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07871.html
> >>
> > The other option would be indeed to do the same thing in JS. I
> believe this
> > is JsSIP's use case. In that case however, regardless of whether you
> choose
> > Plan A, Plan B, No Plan or CU-RTC-Web, you will inevitably be exposed
> to a
> > fair amount of complexity, parsing and JS magic.
> >
> > You are, after all, building a SIP stack.
> 
> Yes, but JsSIP creates its own SIP messages to be sent in the wire, so
> we have full control over *what* we create and send. Those SIP
> messages are not provided by the WebRTC API. But for the SDP
> component, JsSIP retreives a SDP blob string from the PC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > In the above mail you also say:
> >
> >> Another example:
> >>
> >> * I am a powerful SIP conference server which properly implements
> >> WebRTC. I initiate a call to 5 users (running JS SIP app in their
> >> browsers). The initial INVITE has SSRC/MSID fields in the SDP
> >> identifying all the participants, am I right?
> >
> >
> > No, with No Plan there are no SSRCs and MSIDs in the SDP that comes
> from the
> > browser.
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> >> * Later, during the conference, I call to another 6th participant
> and
> >> enter him into the conference, so I need to send a re-INVITE to
> every
> >> participant with a modified version of the SDP (note that this is
> SIP
> >> protocol, so I need to use SIP messages to carry the new info about
> >> SSRC/MSID and so on).
> >
> >
> > That's the thing. You don't need that. In Jitsi we do exactly this
> operation
> > with no Offer/Answer signalling. RTP carries enough information to
> process
> > streams and we use upper layer signalling (4575) for things such as
> mapping
> > SSRCs to users and announcing current participant list.
> 
> That is much better than Plan A and Plan B.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: What would happen in NoPlan if the remote (i.e. a SIP
> gateway/endpoing) sends you a re-INVITE for "hold" purposes and you
> pass the SDP to your PC? or you should not pass the SDP to your PC?
> and if so, what about if the SDP contains updated ICE candidates due
> to remote peer network mobility?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot for your response.
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb