Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 June 2013 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 9B44B21F9BA8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 J0C2ga2JVKKU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x229.google.com (mail-qc0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7819F21F9B79 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c10so2174524qcz.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; 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=lQZrO3GDv1oxARq9LY8WZRmFOE1Dp3F/+3gfsleK8XE=; b=K+UZ0IniTDkO3WkYn9LU5x49mke3T3ta1wpwx5cX0+GDTBrtxrZp2i5mkfi9ZSPoAs t7kMNPwhRWZKCU92aI8zFYRogX+ZjRkSW9Nrwcif8dLveI0ygfd6SnL0dndESV63bL1Y KhJYOd3BzOqs/4CMK8ou9TQyQJrJ9g6tVuLfXVq9J8w7j74J8LQest2Z0DCu+4lVVKHj QCsSQiE4tG03on+xW2OI5PYckribZwFvuI2oyTgD6T9KI2I+9ag/Qo1fLqkCo5W02dkI Y0qsVHBypa0w9ilxH3JYOR9ziOgzoPXSoVaerRMuVRjN/oEB1LAb6Mkm621Okm5tmKH9 ylsw==
X-Received: by 10.224.60.195 with SMTP id q3mr21999951qah.82.1371547878722; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.67.65 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C0269B.5070200@telecomitalia.it>
References: <CAJrXDUHdoxLTsofiwLBdwBNnCCkCBgjSdbmLaXrNEPODMrsSVA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUmRpanfpwryyiCUsOdMLzrd74n-4LXaj_AK3aLe0yQ8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUGnEwtsGZwUUqQgH0vDnMPy=XxqwQB9fpNcW9yQDhFt4w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVghXLu0ZdNkBkvLkqr=xgx6irWnyebU6rv+D45M+iaUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUFkdfE2gfkRx6im3qNwjd3ObNv0tGO8O0vht146+A1kfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmMWiEZDL4eCc6VSEsH1z8F6K5Xzz_-Z6hiKiD9yAap0Q@mail.gmail.com> <51C0269B.5070200@telecomitalia.it>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:30:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=dDAJAMaP5UeyUQeyqO-X-5wGgrELevuaQpWb6kPkHcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk98b9LpZ4zbKKnylILfo6WZKyfiT4XzcafikqoxzZrL0yksbj9wiA37a6TQpWiivRp9n8b
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for a JS API for NoPlan (adding multiple sources without encoding them in SDP)
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:31:20 -0000

2013/6/18 Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>;:
> On 6/18/13 10:31 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> That means the
>>> SDP is really just used as a way to tell the browser what ice ufrag, ice
>>> pwd, and DTLS fingerprint to use.
>>
>> And do we really need SDP for that? mandatory?
>
> I won't comment on whether SDP was the best option to begin with, but
> the fact that every other person on this list has a demo WebRTC app
> that, with little to no manipulation, achieves some kind of *basic*
> interoperability with legacy SIP proves that it was in fact a somewhat
> practical one.

Yes, that is basically a "PSTN call", no more. For sure, many people
have seen their mission accomplished with those demos ("we can enter
the PSTN from the web, we are done, WebRTC satisfy our needs !!!!").


> A whole different story is whether we want to tie ourselves to the
> complicacies of multiple SDP renegotiations for any non-obvious use case
> that may or may not exist today in other that slideware form,

I could not give my opinion better than what is told in these posts:

http://blog.webrtc.is/2013/03/06/sdp-the-webrtc-boat-anchor/
http://blog.webrtc.is/2013/06/17/sdp-inside-webrtc-is-bad-for-sip/








--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;