- From: Prakash <prakashr.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:15:17 -0700
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADa6zEbu8D5A_-_PVjawtdX5BvmOrcJ80a1DFzOpvgCMhRC-Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Prefer option 1. After watching all the debates about no sdp vs sdp (almost a year ago), no jsep vs jsep, and many others, reasoned and deliberated by this group, it doesn't make any sense to throw it all out now and start afresh. -Prakash On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > > The discussions of Aug 28 showed that there are people with differing > > opinions on the structure of the API this WG should design. > > > > Most of the work in front of this group currently is dependent on a basic > > decision between those two approaches - the issues to be resolved (for > > example congestion control and RTP stream mapping) are in many cases > present > > in both proposals, but the API specifications that need to be developed > look > > a lot different. > > > > > > It is not efficient use of the group’s time to work out detailed, > > implementable proposals that then are thrown away because of a later > > decision - nor is it a working environment conducive to inspiring > > volunteers. > > > > The two alternatives, as the chairs see them, are the following: > > > > 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. > > My preference is for option 1. > > The decision between a low-level API (e.g., CU-RTC-Web) and mid-level > API (e.g., the current API) is to a great extent a matter of moving > complexity between the browser implementor and the site implementor. > In general, given the small number of browsers and the large number of > sites, this should be pushing us in the direction of having the > complexity in the browsers. We have already seen that it is possible > for relatively naive site implementors to build stuff on the current > API without having to learn much about VoIP. This would clearly not be > the case with a low-level API absent the existence of some > high-quality library, which then itself creates another problematic > dependency. > > It is of course possible that these considerations would be outweighed > if there were a large class of use cases that were possible with a > low-level API but not the existing API. However, MS hasn't really > presented any such use cases. Given that, and given that it will > certainly cause very significant delay (at least a year and probably > more) in terms of having a completed standard, I don't think it's a > good idea to start over with a low-level API. > > -Ekr > >
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 05:16:53 UTC