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

Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:00:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGwpi2xZ1U3W0HX9SQ=VhuCB52ngfaSrPqO4_5SXQ=cYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, IƱaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
The logic of how to talk to the video conferencing system doesn't need to
be backed into the browser.  If the API provides enough control the JS, the
web app can contain the logic to talk to the video conferencing system.

I know I'm going to start sounding like a broken record, but you brought up
video conferencing systems as an example, so I will say it again: there are
are video conferencing systems that don't use SDP for signalling.  For
example, there are video conferencing systems that use Jingle for
signalling.  Would I expect the logic of how to speak to that video
conferencing system to be baked into the browser?  No, I think I'd prefer
it to be built into a web app built on top of a good API.  Why should
SDP-based video conferencing systems be treated special?

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

> On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Negotiation is a hole.  A vast, soul-sucking, waste of time.
> That's might be closer to true when you control both ends, like Skype.
> It's not true when a browser from one vendor running an application from a
> scone vendor needs to talk to video conferencing system from a third vendor.
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 01:01:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC