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

On 25/07/2013 11:30 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>> I don't see how this would produce a useful artifact. What would the browser
>> emit to be inserted in signaling messages? It has to be something (at least
>> in the current model).
>>
> You have objects whose data will need to be transfer, but instead of
> be required to be done in a SDP blob, the format will be a decision of
> the developer about what best fit for its application, being this SDP,
> JSON, MessagePack or whatever (also custom ones). Also this would lead
> to have an abstract API instead of one SDP oriented.

     You can approach this in an incremental fashion:

 1. Start by moving all use-cases off SDP (this is already planned for 1.0).
 2. Hide SDP from the API but continue to use it in the implementation.
 3. Allow users to handle the conversion from Constraints to the network
    format.

Gili