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

Re: Poll for preferred API alternative

From: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:47:35 -0700
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7C45E52B-DD76-46D4-8593-58019BC63073@westhawk.co.uk>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
I was under the impression that one of the advantages of our adoption of SDP to date was that we could extensively re-use existing code
and that this would give us a high degree of interoperability with a much shorter development time than not using SDP.
Do you still feel that this will be the case ?

T.

On 3 Sep 2012, at 23:34, Justin Uberti wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 5 September 2012 23:48:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 September 2012 23:48:07 GMT