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

Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:11:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBORwqK8ARmQE92Bqa4Tts4GK0xieODVRzA4v51GNVz_pA@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>      My understanding is that:
>    1. Telecoms need to be able to use an SDP transport layer.
>    2. We are keeping SDP in the existing API order to save time (release
>    1.0 as soon as possible, then review).
>     I brought this up because:
>    - We agreed that our goal is to generate Constraints for all major
>    use-cases so users wouldn't have to interact with SDP directly.
>    - For the remaining cases (experimental use-cases), we initially said
>    that users could manipulate SDP directly but then I brought up the
>    possibility of using experimental Constraints behind a flag instead. It was
>    my understanding that you agreed to investigate this possibility.
1. I don't speak for the WG, so what I agreed to investigate isn't relevant.
2. I don't think these are really mutually exclusive possibilities.

>     My assumption (am I wrong?) was that there were no remaining reasons
> for users to interact with SDP directly. If that's truly the case, you can
> continue using SDP under the hood but remove it from the public API at no
> additional cost to the WG.

I don't understand what "public API" means in this case. The decision the
WG made
was that the browser would do O/A and emit SDP to the JS. I don't see how
this discussion
affects that.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 06:12:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC