Re: [rtcweb] Getting rid of SDP

I just recently sent an email to the list summarizing a previous list
thread asking people to share use cases that people were looking at.  So,
in a sense I think we've already gone through the exercise of seeking use
cases, getting them, and summarizing them.  The conclusion I came to was
that a set of orthogonal low-level APIs would meet the use cases people had
expressed.

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:02 PM Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, please, let's make a list of the use cases and the problems.
> Otherwise it feels like we're re-inventing technology for technology's
> sake.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Silvia.
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> wrote:
> > Nice to see that you too are arguing that we should get rid of SDP's
> > design errors!
> >
> > There are of course design errors (I think) in the proposal you made too
> > (the most glaring one is that you tie sources to clients - in order to
> > be generic building tools, sources need global IDs - otherwise we can't
> > build distribution trees for Baumgartner's parachute jump from space
> > using the same technology as chatting with Grandma). 128-bit random
> > numbers are lovely global identifiers. (This is the same error that went
> > into the original design of the http URL - tying location with identity.
> > But I digress.)
> >
> > I'd also like to have a security story that hangs together - each layer
> > has unique security properties that it needs to make sure are
> > satisfiable - from the neeed to not make DDOS simple at the network
> > layer to the assurance that I'm talking to Grandma and not some
> > CGI-generated scammer-face at the application layer. We've so far failed
> > to have a security story in WebRTC that is both comprehensive and
> > attractive to deploy - I'd like to see us do better next time around.
> >
> > I'm a little bit hesitant to ask this, but .... should we go back and
> > look at what use cases we plan to solve in this Grand Unified Scheme of
> > Things?
> >
> > Harald
> >
> > On 03/05/2018 08:43 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> >> SDP is pretty awful. What we need to do to greatly simplify things is
> get rid of SDP. The offer answer is really complicated for modern systems
> that have more uniform capabilities so I would like to get rid of offer
> answer too. To simplify all the control, I think one needs to also simplify
> STUN, TURN, ICE, RTP, and SRTP.
> >>
> >> I wrote a draft outlining that - it is at:
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-dispatch-new-media/
> >>
> >> it is being discussed on the dispatch@ietf.org email list ( you can
> join at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch). Glad to get PR
> at https://github.com/WhatIETF/draft-jennings-dispatch-new-media
> >>
> >> Love to get feedback in general and also on how this, or parts of it,
> would be a good way to go for the next version of WebRTC
> >>
> >> Thanks, Cullen
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>