Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Wed, 12 October 2011 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 1C32A21F8CC0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mD146uWZ7cKN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D07A21F8CC7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-165.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.165] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1RE7Es-0007Lv-8Z for rtcweb@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:25:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4E9612D3.2040207@jesup.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:21:07 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnx=qoS_pqyC45WVEYEFqj-3eP9g_kyhAUaOO6He_UEfw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCibnPLrEq1234bUMXpiKBK0+22mqwYOM__CpcO2nOayg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfms2bt-WPtMeosFQz3-aSf2L6mfX+i68tw45sSgix561Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E8D6507.8000707@ericsson.com> <CALiegf=VyViX2arp0gr0dK4WN_jv=bjwP0LUAxRf=quTxrYrUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfn15szv-2yXeWptWjsQC2CwVODg_X90gD4odZkCR0LzvA@mail.gmail.com> <4E955775.10206@alvestrand.no> <CABRok6n6UA_nFfLzQ4K+H0+idspEsymW29OZH0J5q1ewF3PpRw@mail.gmail.com> <4E956526.2090604@alvestrand.no> <380E325E-A7EF-489A-AA24-0270224FC87A@phonefromhere.com> <4E957C55.9020706@alvestrand.no> <13C2526B-E7B1-408C-BD1D-EC5E8C8F6472@phonefromhere.com> <4E95871F.9010605@alvestrand.no> <E21755ED-205F-4D80-BB97-CF32E989EB3F@phonefromhere.com> <4E959D48.3090401@mozilla.com> <9E790044-DE19-46DD-89D8-C4F2973F8D65@phonefromhere.com> <CAD5OKxvORBxJk=5oAeWjUdMgq9pr7eePOnKana4VtwVEHFNGNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxvORBxJk=5oAeWjUdMgq9pr7eePOnKana4VtwVEHFNGNg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:25:27 -0000

[not responding to the other items mentioned in this post; perhaps later]

On 10/12/2011 12:49 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> This being said, I would also argue that we need to have an API that can
> be used with new codecs implemented by the browser without explicitly
> extending the JavaScript signaling code. The current proposed API
> assumes that JavaScript code understands the meaning of all the codec
> parameters to negotiate them on behalf of the user. If new codec is
> added, JavaScript would need to be updated to correctly select the
> parameters for new codec. We should provide a programming model where it
> is possible to delegate the codec selection and codec parameter
> negotiation to the RTC API while still allowing to do this negotiation
> from JavaScript.

Agreed, I think.

> P.S. I do find the current API proposal a bit deficient due to its
> inability to support forking, asymmetric codec selection, and delegating
> codec negotiation to the RTC implementation.

See my much earlier discussion of Forking support by modifying Harald's 
OFFER/ANSWER messages to include ACCEPT, which also helps solve the 
answer-time clipping issues.

(I'll try to dig it out of the archives and repost a link.)


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org