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

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

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:07:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfm5_netXBusM9j3kN=5SYVSenxjNbN=O7NowE_-HSsYww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
Cc: "public-webrtc_w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/7/4 Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>:
> I'd also note that jingle might even define a SDP <content/>. However, the
> xmpp standards foundation is dominated by XML lovers who would never let
> that happen! :-)

XEP-0167 clearly defines a XML based SDP, and also defines a mapping
between XML-SDP and plain-SDP for compatibility purposes (I expect in
a gateway).

XMPP is all XML, so fot them it is good to be able to parse stanzas
and SDP bodies with the same tool.

In contrast, WebRTC is not a "protocol" (or should not be), but
mandating SDP O/A forces a media signaling protocol. And the worst, it
gives no chance to the developer to build a custom media signaling
protocol since that requires hyper-complex parsing of the SDP blob
generated by the browser.




> In order to successfully deploy such a service that developer will need to
> learn quite alot about things like codecs, RTP, packet loss, bandwidth
> estimation, NAT, ICE, STUN, TURN, signalling protocols, conferencing
> topologies? Should I also mention that this web developer might be required
> to identify broken hardware in customer networks?
>
> The "RTC Web Developer" requires quite a unique skillset. SDP is just the
> tip of the iceberg.

Nothing in this argument from you makes SDP a good choice. You (and
all the list) will see a new API proposal ver soon, much simpler and
more powerful than current "API".



Best regards.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 09:08:10 UTC

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