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

Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jim.barnett@genesyslab.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 EADD221F9D6B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 kw9h-LKYlGG9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from service108-us.mimecast.com (service108-us.mimecast.com [205.139.110.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE3321F9D68 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail-us.genesyslab.com (168.75.250.4 [168.75.250.4]) (Using TLS) by service108-us.mimecast.com; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:02:27 -0400
Received: from GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com ([fe80::c80a:d985:3cca:a5e7]) by GENSJZFE02.msg.int.genesyslab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:02:25 -0700
From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
Thread-Index: AQHOe+kjuVJVaRVSxkOhmsGbhpzWAplbUROAgAAAuoCAAAGzAIAAAJqA//+LoGA=
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:02:24 +0000
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281057B7A@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
References: <CAJrXDUGMohpBdi-ft-o_uE7ewFkw7wRY9x7gYEncjov7qi-Bew@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPa4wBS8pYq=0wesMOfL6TkeC7QGAZ8pWwOcnkhkJqWfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFxo8P8wxh8jX3019yPQOuwQ0eVdsFmRXsbWdWinnc5oA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOTKpmFC34waqZ4kA-P8t+E6yY9gX1JFCHhsBH0+CF-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnDD8PAxZMfczV=cZtwx49XDT2+XiRhe5t88cT+xayz5g@mail.gmail.com> <8B58E2AB-09B7-4816-8BC4-B932030E2ED2@iii.ca> <CAJrXDUEZixeAsDc42WY-kZvrpA-p4s1sjET-qzxZ2VH9x7yc5Q@mail.gmail.com> <51DAD083.8000901@stpeter.im> <CAJrXDUFaGM+7j8xyjxJ31ZOwDCbwdgivTw1hNjUXqEB9c7kkWw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1307081649420.19554@lo.psyced.org> <CAJrXDUF4kwC5oK=+96q3gwdK_V1+DcyGe+KHnZByrvO5b6ss7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUF4kwC5oK=+96q3gwdK_V1+DcyGe+KHnZByrvO5b6ss7g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [108.7.220.231]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MC-Unique: 113070811022800302
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281057B7AGENSJZMBX01msgint_"
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface
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 15:02:40 -0000

I think that we need a separate verb to describe the case where the developer needs to modify the SDP itself (i.e., rather than translation it into or out of another language).  Those are different use cases, and different sorts of problems.


-          Jim

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Thatcher
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:56 AM
To: Philipp Hancke
Cc: <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

I'm fine with "mangle".

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de<mailto:fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>     > So compatibility with SIP is important but compatibility with
>     Jingle is just impossible.
>
>     The mapping of SDP to jingle is in the Jingle specs ? I'm not
>     express any opinion on this one way or another other but the authors
>     of theses specs have always claimed Jingle fully mapped to and from SDP.
>
>
> I think he meant "impossible without SDP munging", which I think is
> undeniable.

What do you mean by "SDP munging"?


I mean that if the JS wants to send Jingle XML over the wire, it has to parse the SDP.  Then, when it receives Jingle XML, it has to serialize SDP.   That parsing and serializing of SDP I call "munging".  We could come up with better words for more specific
activities, but that seems to be the word everyone else uses, so it's what I've used.

I think "mangle" is a better term here. People who want to do jingle are aware of the fact that this is more difficult than running their own proprietary stuff over xml. Or use SoX :-)