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

On 7/19/13 12:40 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
> Thanks for digging this up... in the meantime of course there's been
> work ongoing in the MMUSIC IETF WG that adds even more questions than
> it answers. See messages from as recent as today about msid, bundle,
> "unified plan", etc. (All useful work that is needed for other types
> of SDP-using applications, like SIP-based videoconferencing systems,
> but work that will take some time and which as long as we stick with
> SDP as an API will be holding up the WEBRTC specification)
>
> As long as it is allowed for the SDP to be modified between
> createOffer and setLocalDescription, there must be a W3C
> specification instructing browser vendors as to what changes are and
> are not allowed.

Perhaps we should, at least initially, consider Martin's proposal: 
modifications are not allowed between createX and setLocal.

>
> Or, as I've pointed out before, we could define a browser API that is
> entirely independent of SDP, and allow enough control that JavaScript
> programmers can arrange objects and set their parameters such that
> useful SRTP media streams can be sent and received, and then they can
> write whatever JavaScript they want to create the SDP that is getting
> defined over in MMUSIC and other places, or not use those specs if
> they so desire.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> ________________________________________ From: Martin Thomson
> [martin.thomson@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 9:53 AM To:
> Peter Thatcher Cc: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE); <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> public-webrtc@w3.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application
> Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control
> surface
>
> On 18 July 2013 08:12, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
>> I believe I began paying attention to the mailing lists after you
>> sent out theses slides that you didn't present.  I'm interested in
>> seeing them, and while I could dig through archives to find them,
>> if convenient, could you please give me a link to the slides?
>> Thanks.
>
> It wasn't actually November, it was October, which made this harder
> to find than I had expected.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Oct/0148.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 10:32:34 UTC