- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:38:03 -0700
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com, matthew.kaufman@skype.net, ekr@rtfm.com, public-webrtc@w3.org
On 28 August 2012 12:44, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > We know that some browser will want to implement extensions. Not permitting > them to do so would land us in the "can't evolve" situation that we don't > want to be in. What we need is a clearly delineated and documented set of things that are possible. That set of things might also include some of the things that are impossible. That set of possible things includes extension. As it turns out, extension is a hard problem to solve. At the moment, there is nothing. That includes the MS proposal. I assume that others are assuming that SDP extension mechanisms are adequate. That might need to be re-examined. I understand that the SDP extension mechanisms are constrained. > So we have to define a minimum profile that all browsers will support, just > like we do for codecs, and then use the extension rules that are defined for > SDP to allow further extensions that don't cause harm. > > Not saying it's trivial, but it's relatively clear what has to be done. :) --Martin
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 22:38:31 UTC