Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

Vendors can use SDP with a JS libary on top of WebRTC, without forcing
other users to deal with SDP or a JS API for dealing with SDP, and without
forcing others to use the SDP O/A model (which is fully relevant since not
all the media signaling protocols need O/A semantigs). But those are not
the only issues with SDP. The mails I've referenced show many other
limitations and constrains SDP usage forces.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
El 19/06/2013 16:45, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> escribió:

>
>     Disregarding the whole section about replacing Offer/Answer since I
> believe it is out of scope for this discussion, are you asking for a
> Javascript API that interacts directly with WebRTC without having to pass
> through a blob/opaque-token? I agree the latter is not ideal, but at the
> end of the day what's the big deal? If vendors want SDP and end-users want
> a Javascript API, agreeing to a blob is a decent compromise.
>
> Gili
>
> On 19/06/2013 10:36 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
> Just this:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> El 19/06/2013 16:35, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@aliax.net> escribió:
>
>> Please re-read again. Nobody in that thread is requesting an API for
>> managing an opaque string. ;)
>>
>> --
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>> <ibc@aliax.net>
>> El 19/06/2013 16:33, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> escribió:
>>
>>>
>>>     So having read most of this discussion I'm a bit puzzled. Aren't we
>>> proposing the same thing? I believe we're both saying that vendors should
>>> be free to use whatever format they want under the hood (SDP or otherwise)
>>> but that users should be given a Javascript API for querying and
>>> manipulating this opaque token. Did I misunderstand?
>>>
>>> Gili
>>>
>>> On 19/06/2013 10:12 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>
>>> Offer / Answer.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>> <ibc@aliax.net>
>>> El 19/06/2013 16:11, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> escribió:
>>>
>>>> On 19/06/2013 9:42 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2013/6/19 cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Honestly, I think this is the wrong approach/workaround.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      What do you propose instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07880.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07896.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07899.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>>>> <ibc@aliax.net>
>>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> With respect to
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html what
>>>> does O/A stand for?
>>>>
>>>> Gili
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>