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

Re: The main issue with SDP - Was: Initial notes on MS proposal

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:07 -0600
Cc: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, <ekr@rtfm.com>, <harald@alvestrand.no>, <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EB99417D-67B5-4FFA-B939-8E498139F308@iii.ca>
To: markus.isomaki@nokia.com

On Aug 28, 2012, at 1:00 PM, markus.isomaki@nokia.com wrote:

> Hi,
> Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> When a browser generates an SDP offer and then the developer modifies
>> that SDP and calls "setLocalDescription", how will the developer know *what*
>> SDP is permitted by the particular browser context they are running in? Not
>> just "which codecs are supported" but what various permutations of legal SDP
>> from which particular RFCs will and will not be allowed as modifications? And if
>> it doesn't work, how is that signaled? Are we going to pop up an "SDP line 5
>> syntax error after semicolon" alert for the user?
>> And that's just for compatibility within a single browser. Then, when we take
>> that SDP to another browser, after modifying it, will *that* be accepted at the
>> far end? And will the changes we need to make to the SDP offer/answer
>> mechanism to enable things like "setLocalDescription" leave this compatible
>> with legacy SIP endpoints or not?
> This is also the main issue I have with the current JSEP and SDP offer/answer based approach. We haven't defined exactly what SDP O/A functionality is mandatory to be supported by each browser, and whether the browser may also implement other extensions of SDP. It has not been very easy to get this part interoperable in SIP.
> Markus 

That is supposed to be defined in the JESP draft but I agree we need to come to consensus on what they are and make sure they are written down. 
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 19:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:32 UTC