Re: Moving forward with SDP control from Peter Thatcher on 2013-07-19 (public-webrtc@w3.org from July 2013)

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:31:13 -0700
To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>, Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE51_Tw6k-cSBydzGdSROcJMFT-aWgLGAdCGCfur_LUeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Everything that needs to be signalled needs to be available to the JS
because it's up the JS to signal it.  For example, if SDES is used, crypto
keys must be available to the JS because its up to the JS to send it to the
remote side.  There's no way for you to signal it without having access to
it.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:49 AM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>wrote:

> >     That is not strictly true. Any immutable low-level property should
> be hidden from the application developer. Meaning, as an application
> developer I don't care that the signaling layer is using encryption key
> "9823cuj980ru890e" and yet (I think) this shows up in the SDP. If I don't
> ever need to know about it, I shouldn't have access to it.
> >
> +1
>
>

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 17:32:20 UTC