- From: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:29:34 +0100
- To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
- Cc: Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>, Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu>, stox <stox@ietf.org>, XMPP Jingle <jingle@xmpp.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 22 Jul 2013, at 17:26, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote: > > > On 22.07.13, 17:44, Iņaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> 2013/7/22 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>: >>> On 7/22/13 5:14 PM, Iņaki 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. >>> >>> You are obviously misinforming here. SIP is the signaling protocol and a SIP >>> server has really little to deal with SDP -- I'm sure you know that. >> >> I was talking about a SIP device also implementing WebRTC in the media >> plane. Current WebRTC spec mandates plain-SDP usage in the wire to >> signal your media description and transport/ICE information to the >> peer. > > I don't think this is true. You can very well translate the SDP to Jingle in the browser and then only send XML on the wire. > > I completely agree that this would be a pain, but there is nothing that "mandates" against it. It is a pain - but it is do-able - take a look at PhonoSDK on github. T. > > Emil > > -- > https://jitsi.org > >
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 16:30:00 UTC