Message-ID: <51ED53E6.10400@ik.nu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:46:46 +0200
From: Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <51ED4A45.9000703@ik.nu>
 <CALiegfk1kUuezLSOqfLRnFC7gNWXgjerv9Q_mPKrR01zp3mdqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfk1kUuezLSOqfLRnFC7gNWXgjerv9Q_mPKrR01zp3mdqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: stox@ietf.org, XMPP Jingle <jingle@xmpp.org>,
 "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>,
 "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] XSF Jingle Special Interest Group.
Precedence: list

On 2013-07-22 17:14, I=C3=B1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Great. First thing you should complain about is the fact that current
> WebRTC specification makes unfeasible for a browser to use SDP-XML as
> defined by XEP-0167. So if you have a SIP server you will be able to
> directly connect from the browser, but if you have a Jingle server you
> will need a gateway.


Hi I=C3=B1aki,

I have been following the recent discussions for a while now, and think=20
I understand the various stand points, including yours.

As I mentioned in my announcement, mapping SDP to Jingle's negotiation=20
parameters is indeed one of the concerns we are going to look into.=20
Philipp's work on his WebRTC plugin for Strophe.js [1], which uses=20
Jingle signalling, has shown that it indeed takes quite some effort to=20
map and mangle SDP to get things going. The spreadsheet questionnaire=20
that Peter Thatcher asked people to fill in (thanks!) also has several=20
comments to that effect. During our discussions on the Jingle mailing=20
list and the meeting last week, more of such comments were made.

I want to stress, again, that Jingle's negotiation parameters should not=20
be referred to as a flavor of SDP expressed in XML. This is misleading,=20
as it is not managed by MMUSIC, and actually weakens your point of not=20
wanting SDP as an API surface. I can understand that looking at the=20
current specification could give that impression, though. The Jingle=20
examples are currently interleaved by SDP examples to show the mapping,=20
and we are looking into making the distinction clearer, maybe even as a=20
document separate from this one.

[1] https://github.com/ESTOS/strophe.jingle

PS. Yes, I messed up the subject header of the original announcement.

--=20
ralphm