W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Signaling & peerconnection API questions

From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:45:33 +0200
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA4CF994.CB97%goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>


On 2011-07-20 14.27, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

>On 07/20/11 12:39, Göran Eriksson AP wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-07-19 13.20, "Harald Alvestrand"<harald@alvestrand.no>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/18/11 23:07, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Prakash wrote:
>>>>> Excellent. Thanks Ian. I was most concerned about interop with non
>>>>> browser/existing systems. If the message is not opaque, then anyone
>>>>> should be able to translate it if needed.
>>>> Indeed. Compatibility with SIP in particular was high on my mind when
>>>> designing this API; the intent is that it should be almost trivial to
>>>> do a
>>>> SIP gateway for this stuff. (I mean, as trivial as this stuff can get,
>>>> anyway...)
>>>>
>>> FWIW, this is one area where Ian and I still don't agree; I think SDP
>>>is
>>> a representation format we need to avoid, and that we're better off
>>>with
>>> a JSON-based format where the relevant information can be easily
>>> transformed into SDP when needed.
>> Just to make sure I understand- it is only the format You dislike, not
>>the
>> semantics and/or the procedures as such of SDP?
>I also think that the semantics are ill-defined, with all too much stuff
>that is context-specific done as if it was general, and general stuff
>done in different ways for different media types, and the procedures are
>vague (basically, what an SDP data blob means is defined by context - so
>we have to talk about the procedures SIP (or others) uses for SDP, not
>about "SDP procedures" in general).
>
>It's reasonably clear to me that if dropping the SDP format is to be
>useful, it has to come with a commitment to not import the parts of SDP
>that don't make sense in this context (instead of just allowing it in
>and then ignoring it in the implementation). That's Cullen's option 2 -
>and the fact that people are extending SDP to add stuff needed by new
>codecs is, in my opinion, a clear indication that we got the layering
>wrong.

Well, the need to improve SDP is not a new question. So, do You propose we
should do something in the context
of webRTC, e.g. in IETF?


>
>                Harald
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 19:46:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 July 2011 19:46:02 GMT