Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate to be re-opened

[Robin Raymond <[e-mail]>]

To me the issue is not easy of use but compatibility, as what is 
produced should increase compatibility not decrease it. That's one of 
the major drawbacks of SDP with offer/answer as I've described numerous 
times -- it increases incompatibility rather than decreases it.

I too want to see an API where people don't need to understand a complex 
mechanism to be able to produce a suitable application. Unfortunately, 
the current SDP approach all too often requires learning SDP by 
JavaScript developers to perform normal edge case scenarios (e.g. 
putting media on/off hold). That's simply not acceptable in my mind.

That's why I will drafting up an alternative approach which can have a 
reasonable non-SDP based API without offer/answer but I will provide a 
JavaScript shim on top that will provide the current "simple" approach, 
including being able perform offer/answer using SDP (as some people 
prefer). This should more than adequately satisfy the charter's limited 
1.0 goals and responsibilities and give the non-SDP people a basis for 
moving forward where they can feel comfortable will satisfy their needs 
as well.

-Robin



> Hutton, Andrew <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 21 June, 2013 12:52 PM
> Now this is getting ridiculous.
>
> You do know that one of the goals is to build an API that web 
> developers without knowledge of IETF protocols can use to build apps. 
> I was only using this as an example where this has been achieved.
>
> I also think you know that there are many apps out there already which 
> are much more than high school projects.
>
> I believe we are simply making life difficult by trying to do too much 
> at once  and we need to rethink what is really needed and deliver on 
> what we have said we we will deliver please read the charter.
>
> Andy
>