Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface) from cowwoc on 2013-07-29 (public-webrtc@w3.org from July 2013)

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:22:52 -0400
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Message-ID: <51F688CC.2020207@bbs.darktech.org>

On 29/07/2013 11:02 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> On 25 July 2013 11:02, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>>> Very few service providers also manufacture video conferring servers. So if you consider a video conferencing service, they are probably getting the video MCU from a different place than who developed the web service.
>>> That's not an argument that has any bearing on the interactions
>>> between the web service and the browser (i.e., the API).  That just
>>> says that the web service and MCU had best have a well-defined
>>> protocol that describes their interactions.
>> The question I was asked if they same Service Provider created both of them and the answer to that is often no.
>
> Define the wire protocol for that, which is SIP+SDP+Plan-Unified. Let
> MMUSIC do that. And let JS developers to build JS libraries that
> create and manage such a SDP while internally use a real JS Object
> based API for WebRTC.
>
> Let all be happy, not just the gateway manufacturers.

+1

SDP compatibility does not require us to use it as an API surface.

Gili

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 15:23:22 UTC