W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Microsoft API Proposal

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:05:50 +0200
Message-ID: <502836CE.1060500@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 08/09/2012 09:00 PM, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 05:50 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>> Martin,
>>    Yes, it's true that the building the signaling channel is the 
>> application's problem.
>>    I'm wondering about how the applications interpret the messages 
>> that are sent on the signaling channel.
> >    SDP specifies a syntax and semantics, so that when an application 
> receives an SDP message over the signaling
>>    channel, it knows what it is and how to interpret it.  How will an 
>> application know that the message it has
>>    received over the signaling channel is a RealTimeMedia description?
>>
>> - Jim
>
> That's the problem of the web applications (the servers) that talk to 
> each other. They have to agree on a signaling protocol, they can agree 
> on a way to exchange media descriptions.
>
> SDP looks foreign and cumbersome in an environment that easily 
> serializes and parses complex data structures (JSON). What I got from 
> the discussions is that it was only chosen so that google can re-use 
> their existing SDP offer/answer libraries. SIP interconnection should 
> not be the reason.
>
> Would it really harm if JSEP dropped SDP in favor of some Javascript 
> object? It could still have an toSDP function..

As currently described, a SessionDescription is a Javascript object with 
a toSDP function.... so perhaps we're already there?
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2012 23:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 12 August 2012 23:06:19 GMT