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

Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:47:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfku_2kbp_0rPiOGx15V9ZjNOOuGS=Zw+xFGQSgkgzETcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Cc: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/7/15 Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>:
> I’m not sure even the revised 3) is  correct.  There is certainly a strong
> focus on getting version 1 done,  and on not un-doing work that has already
> been done.  However a carefully designed API sitting on top of SDP would be
> largely independent of the rest of the API and would not necessarily delay
> things.


Hi Jim, please let me know if I understand correctly:


So many people in this list has given lot of rationale explaining why
the current model is not good. Developers have confirmed it in a
survey. The arguments (along with others) are:

- SDP O/A mandate is an artifice. We don't need O/A, and it can be
done by the JS APP.

- SDP fixed model is bad for interoperability (even for SIP).

- Current SDP model makes it impossible to implement in the browser
whatever different than SIP or something not based on plain-SDP O/A
(i.e. Jingle XEP-0167 which uses SDP-XML)

- Many others...

All of them are properly explained in a draft:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-01


But now it seems that "adding a few API methods on top of the
SessionDescription Object" is the only we all need, am I right?



> If we just elaborate RTCSDPType, only section 4.7 is affected.
> If it got done in time, it would be part of version 1.  If it didn’t, it
> could end up in a later version.

Honestly I would like to read some kind of veredict on this topic from
chairs. At this point I do not know *who* is deciding or assuming the
conclusion you assert, and people does not want to waste time
providing new API proposals if they are doomed before birth.



Best regards.



--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Monday, 15 July 2013 14:48:26 UTC

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