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

XSF Jingle Special Interest Group.

From: Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:46:46 +0200
Message-ID: <51ED53E6.10400@ik.nu>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, stox@ietf.org, XMPP Jingle <jingle@xmpp.org>
On 2013-07-22 17:14, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Great. First thing you should complain about is the fact that current
> WebRTC specification makes unfeasible for a browser to use SDP-XML as
> defined by XEP-0167. So if you have a SIP server you will be able to
> directly connect from the browser, but if you have a Jingle server you
> will need a gateway.


Hi Iñaki,

I have been following the recent discussions for a while now, and think 
I understand the various stand points, including yours.

As I mentioned in my announcement, mapping SDP to Jingle's negotiation 
parameters is indeed one of the concerns we are going to look into. 
Philipp's work on his WebRTC plugin for Strophe.js [1], which uses 
Jingle signalling, has shown that it indeed takes quite some effort to 
map and mangle SDP to get things going. The spreadsheet questionnaire 
that Peter Thatcher asked people to fill in (thanks!) also has several 
comments to that effect. During our discussions on the Jingle mailing 
list and the meeting last week, more of such comments were made.

I want to stress, again, that Jingle's negotiation parameters should not 
be referred to as a flavor of SDP expressed in XML. This is misleading, 
as it is not managed by MMUSIC, and actually weakens your point of not 
wanting SDP as an API surface. I can understand that looking at the 
current specification could give that impression, though. The Jingle 
examples are currently interleaved by SDP examples to show the mapping, 
and we are looking into making the distinction clearer, maybe even as a 
document separate from this one.

[1] https://github.com/ESTOS/strophe.jingle

PS. Yes, I messed up the subject header of the original announcement.

-- 
ralphm
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 15:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC