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

Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 13:23:05 -0400
Message-ID: <51D45DF9.7030604@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
CC: IƱaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "piranna_gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc_w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>

     FYI, here is a perfect example of how SDP is being abused:

 1. I ask for the ability to constrain the minimum/maximum bandwidth
    used by WebRTC:
    https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1327
    <https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1327&can=4&colspec=ID%20Pri%20Mstone%20ReleaseBlock%20Area%20Status%20Owner%20Summary>
 2. This issue is "blocked by":
    https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1349
 3. https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1349 is closed
    with the following comments
     1. "These are not actually exposed through PeerConnection, only
        through the C++ API, right?  Maybe we should adjust the title of
        the bug."
     2. "Those are exposed to JS through SDP already."

     Someone needs to communicate to the Chrome committers that exposing 
functionality to JS "through SDP" is not acceptable. Meaning, 
https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1349 should be reopened.

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 17:23:58 UTC

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