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

Re: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:36:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP20d-4V1iZs=VQP1iaih7q-4o6cXTed2KJRNFWSNTbJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.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 Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

I thought this is what I said "is in order to allow sensible interop of
these features with SDP-using
systems on the other end."

-Ekr
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:38:00 UTC

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