W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:31:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXDwkJEYs3Mh22p4GsMEE6fDdzAMRmz2oUsPtEJEAG82Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Adrian Georgescu <ag@ag-projects.com>, Jesús Leganés Combarro <piranna@gmail.com>, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2 July 2013 07:38, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> Conversely, even if we were to discard SDP entirely at the interface to
> WebRTC, we would still need to specify SDP representations of these
> concepts in order to allow sensible interop of these features with
> SDP-using
> systems on the other end. For instance, if WebRTC implementations are
> to use trickle ICE and get that when they interoperate with SIP systems,
> then trickle ICE needs to be added to SDP.
>


"want" not "need" :)

These features are highly desirable, but as long as an API is able to
disable those features, they can interoperate with SDP-using devices, just
not with those features.

Given that those features didn't appear until WebRTC arrived, maybe that's
a sign that it's OK (not great, just OK).
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:32:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC