- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:49 +0200
- To: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
- CC: "roman@telurix.com" <roman@telurix.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <503E3A59.5010704@alvestrand.no>
When asking questions, or commenting on others' positions, please use a different subject line than the "Poll" line, to make it less difficult for us who are trying to catch all the answers and tally them. Thank you! Harald On 08/29/2012 05:15 PM, Li Li wrote: > > Regarding implementing ICE in Javascript, this analysis [1] raises the > issue that JS may not be able to satisfy the ICE timing requirements. > > In the Microsoft proposal [2], there is a JS example demonstrating ICE > connectivity checking between local and remote ICE candidates: > > Example 5 > > function receivePeerCandidates(remotePorts) { > > var candidatePairs = localCandidates.forEach(function(local) { > > local.addEventListener('checksuccess', checkSuccessCallback); > > return remotePorts.forEach(function(remote) { > > local.check(remote); > > }); > > }); > > } > > Will local.check(remote) queue the checking requests and send them at > 20ms interval as required by ICE, thus avoid the problem in [1]? > > I hope someone, especially the Microsoft team, can clarify this issue > to help us make an informed decision. > > Thanks. > > Li > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cbran-rtcweb-nat-00.txt > > [2] http://html5labs.com/cu-rtc-web/cu-rtc-web.htm > > *From:*Roman Shpount [mailto:roman@telurix.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:26 AM > *To:* Stefan Hakansson LK > *Cc:* public-webrtc@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Poll for preferred API alternative > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com > <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote: > > 1) Continue with a design based on the PeerConnection object, using > SDP as part of the API, roughly in the style of the current API > description. > 2) Remove the PeerConnection object and all use of SDP from the API, > and pursue an API roughly in the style of Microsoft's CU-WebRTC proposal. > > > I would hope 2 is chosen. > > PeerConnection API was created to simplify interoperability, but ended > up as something that will not work with SIP (modified offer/answer, a > large number of SDP extensions that are not supported by anything > currently existing, no support for forking) or Jingle (Jingle was not > using SDP to begin with). I think having a big black box of SDP will > make interoperability harder, not easier. > > I also think that keeping the offer/answer and ICE state machines > hidden within the browser is undesirable. WebRTC application would > primarily need to communicate and interoperate with other instances of > the same WebRTC application. If some sort of session negotiation > protocol is chosen and used by this application, it should be possible > to enforce it for this application, without it being changed with the > browser update. If WebRTC application needs to interop with external > real time communication devices, it should also be possible to fix the > session negotiation protocol within the application and do no depend > on browser updates to modify it. > _____________ > Roman Shpount >
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 15:51:24 UTC