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

Re: [rtcweb] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups.

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:42:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfngO=UOboNbbsLVsFy2YVQht76L7fky2KWtqXHo0L_RVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Cc: Ralph Meijer <ralphm@ik.nu>, XMPP Jingle <jingle@xmpp.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/7/22 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>:

>>> On 7/22/13 5:14 PM, 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.
>>> 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.
> You wrote a SIP server, just read above.

I also wrote "SDP-XML" so obvisouly I meant a "SIP + media server" ;)

> And producing a xml blob instead of text plain blob does not make much
> difference from the architecture point of view, if that was your concern,
> nor simplifies things.

"Producing a XML blob"? Did I say that? where?

Well, rationale enough has been given in public-webrtc and IETF rtcweb
ML. You can read the archives or, much better, read the following
draft that, IMHO, summarizes all the API discussion:


You can also find useful the following document with the opinion of
various developers about the current WebRTC SDP-based API:



Iñaki Baz Castillo
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 16:43:26 UTC

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