- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:07:23 +0200
- To: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
- Cc: "public-webrtc_w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/7/4 Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>: > I'd also note that jingle might even define a SDP <content/>. However, the > xmpp standards foundation is dominated by XML lovers who would never let > that happen! :-) XEP-0167 clearly defines a XML based SDP, and also defines a mapping between XML-SDP and plain-SDP for compatibility purposes (I expect in a gateway). XMPP is all XML, so fot them it is good to be able to parse stanzas and SDP bodies with the same tool. In contrast, WebRTC is not a "protocol" (or should not be), but mandating SDP O/A forces a media signaling protocol. And the worst, it gives no chance to the developer to build a custom media signaling protocol since that requires hyper-complex parsing of the SDP blob generated by the browser. > In order to successfully deploy such a service that developer will need to > learn quite alot about things like codecs, RTP, packet loss, bandwidth > estimation, NAT, ICE, STUN, TURN, signalling protocols, conferencing > topologies? Should I also mention that this web developer might be required > to identify broken hardware in customer networks? > > The "RTC Web Developer" requires quite a unique skillset. SDP is just the > tip of the iceberg. Nothing in this argument from you makes SDP a good choice. You (and all the list) will see a new API proposal ver soon, much simpler and more powerful than current "API". Best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 09:08:10 UTC