Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Mon, 08 July 2013 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2CB21F9D07 for <>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.642
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ildmp77MJB7N for <>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4951121F9DC1 for <>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bv4so2371576qab.18 for <>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:07:13 -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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=yiGQBwY9KIU4qAFZcntf7vOUQwZUruMmf8GNM1/1qjY=; b=QiXjpfKIAnp3AU5P39Vhdb5xHticQYdiaasZSinFPK/M9rjKOm1izn4hfAQbNCaoH8 IFIxlvHah39ZbIp23MvqDA96BZagtol0/tycjL82/ylMHZLLnepcbc6tTwv6xRy11FEl jqATOYjoAN3bGWk1WUArcWaDb+G8tqxAzTgBMDC56E4rp//XS7gdKX0W72PbJAU+C8Cz spUDZOQnYWq60cwqM7UhQS3cOVuO71M3MpzsVLK6g4v34o0+dhadYpsE2TOjbS/gaYsp 2+aLLt/uFaUGklownjIPPdOyrrNsWIj7E/fE+w2NDwBbvjVpE0YXEI/ZomJtSnGlsJ1b bI+g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id fs2mr3895188qcb.68.1373303233739; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:06:52 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkK+qW9Jax384+WFsGJ3Dm5k8/a6TysS7tyk6Jod2CPlrKhHPaSHjI2m9/VvZ3s7ARB1l+t
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 17:07:19 -0000

2013/7/8 Stefan Håkansson LK <>:
> And, I don't understand why there would be a debate about this. There
> are obviously many who want to define APIs (or constraints) that allow
> most use-cases to be met without having to modify the SDP. Why would
> anyone have anything against that? If there is anyone who really wants
> to modify the SDP instead (I have no clue why, but anyway) they can
> still do that.

This sounds to me like "SDP will be here forever because it was talked
about two years ago, but let us improve it by adding some more API
methods so there is no need to parse/mangle it".

Just to clarify:

- Some of us don't want a better API for the currently proposed SDP-based spec.

- SDP must be parsed/mangled anyway if you want a JS WebRTC app that
talks Jingle XEP 0167, so there is no "API improvement" that would
avoid such a pain.

- It's not just SDP but also the mandate of SDP O/A. What I think is
that it is not well understood that SDP O/A is an artificial constrain
introduced in WebRTC just because SIP phones do that ***at application
level*** (so you are mandating that *any* WebRTC application in the
future must play like-SIP rules and SDP O/A model, which is insane). A
better and more complete API for the current spec DOES NOT avoid this
artificial limitation.

In short: some of us DO NOT want a better JS API for the current
opaque-unmanageable-SDP-blob based "API". Period. We strongly consider
it can be done really better by throwing out SDP and SDP O/A and by
providing a *real* JS Objects based API.

Iñaki Baz Castillo