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

Re: Poll for preferred API alternative

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 23:34:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1YiWygE3gGhb+CrwEN5gpjLxHCkzppj3E95-5PLiHLqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Right - we've been working on getting all the basics in place, but we
expect to start interop testing in the near future, which will bring all
these issues to the surface.

While using something other than SDP would make it easier to massage the
session description, I'm not sure it would remove the interoperability
issue you refer to.


On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy@cisco.com>wrote:

>
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > My experience in phono is that we _always_ have to parse-fillet-rewrite
> the SDP in both directions to get chrome to interop with anything.
> >
>
> It's true that the current Chrome SDP is not really workable SDP but I
> think that is simply an issue with they have not got around to that part of
> yet - the WebRTC/RTCWeb WGs have not even started serious WG discussion
> about what SDP extensions are going to be MTI. I think the chrome guys
> intent is to implement SDP that is widely compatible once we get around to
> figuring out what that is.
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 06:34:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 06:34:56 GMT