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

Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:35:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh1tRKa_KQ2xD0Yp22rq3OHcKAFPYxWVa4f2i795=Xk5pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Chrome-Firefox interoperation will be fixed without hacks in some weeks, so
it's not a valid use case. Giving higher priority to Opus over others it
is, but could also be done with a higher priority API.
El 19/06/2013 00:18, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> escribió:

>
>     Sure. If you look at apprtc (the reference WebRTC application) you
> will notice they manipulate the SDP to improve Chrome-Firefox interop and
> give Opus a higher priority than other audio streams.
>
>     That's basic stuff. I'm sure others have more use-cases.
>
> Gili
>
> On 18/06/2013 4:10 PM, Frédéric Luart wrote:
>
>  Hi Gili,****
>
> ** **
>
> Do you already have some use cases where you need SDP manipulation ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Fred****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>]
> *Sent:* lundi 17 juin 2013 17:05
> *To:* public-webrtc@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Fred,
>
>     A good first step but I'm not looking for an API that wraps all of
> WebRTC. I just want the SDP portion wrapped.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
> On 17/06/2013 8:51 AM, Frédéric Luart wrote:****
>
> Hello Ken,****
>
>  ****
>
> We started to develop a WebRTC JavaScript library which is available at
> www.apirtc.com****
>
> We are experts on VoIP and one of our objectives in the development of
> this library is to bring our expertise to Web developers and solve specific
> VoIP issues****
>
> We plan to add this “SDP manipulation” feature on our API so let us know
> if we can help on this subject****
>
>  ****
>
> Fred****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Ken Smith [mailto:smithkl42@gmail.com <smithkl42@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* samedi 15 juin 2013 07:14
> *To:* cowwoc
> *Cc:* Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku); public-webrtc@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?****
>
>  ****
>
> I would believe that SDP is a mere "implementation detail" if it weren't
> for the fact that over on the webrtc-discuss mailing list, maybe half the
> discussions involve how to tweak the SDP to get it to interoperate with
> some gateway or other.****
>
>  ****
>
> It's quite plausible to me that because of backwards compatibility issues,
> dealing with SDP directly is going to remain a critical feature of getting
> WebRTC to work with legacy systems. But among other things, that also leads
> me to believe that the industry has suffered a collective failure of
> imagination. SDP is a horrible API, and somebody, somewhere need to figure
> out a better way of getting these systems to interoperate without arbitrary
> edits to of opaque text files.****
>
>  ****
>
> That's probably beyond the scope of WebRTC, but I'd appreciate it if
> everyone involved in designing these API's took this as an important data
> point. Folks like myself who want to use WebRTC but who aren't experts in
> VOIP quite justifiably hate everything about SDP and everything it stands
> for. It's a significant problem in desperate need of a real solution.****
>
>  ****
>
> Ken****
>
>  ****
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:58 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:**
> **
>
>
>     An object wrapper would be nice but it wasn't really the point I was
> trying to make.
>
>     My point is that if SDP really is an implementation detail then the
> specification must ensure that we can swap it out for something else in the
> future without breaking backwards compatibility. To me, that begins by
> specifying that the SDP argument is an opaque token. WebRTC 1.0 might use
> SDP while WebRTC 2.0 might use some other format.
>
> Gili****
>
>
>
> On 14/06/2013 11:47 PM, Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) wrote:****
>
> My 2 cents ....
>
> I personally dont feel why would one want to modify SDP frequently than
> supporting few special cases. Also once the APIs, SDP Usages and
> constraints are finalized, i envision there will be much lesser need to
> modify SDP by hand.
>
> Needing to have a object wrapper is fine by not sure if it is a MUST
> requirement.
>
>
> Cheers
> Suhas
>
> ________________________________________
> From: cowwoc [cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:10 PM
> To: public-webrtc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?
>
>       +1. I understand that the spec authors are determined to stick with
> SDP and that's okay, but can we get the specification to explicitly
> state that SDP arguments are to be treated as read-only opaque tokens at
> this time? This leaves the door open to providing an object-oriented API
> for mutating SDP at some future time.
>
> Gili
>
> On 14/06/2013 3:14 PM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:****
>
> Isn't there somewhere a wrapper for SDPs? It's crazy trying to work
> with them, and nothing have been decided yet about using a more
> object-oriented API that modify the SPD strings by hand, while it has
> been agreed several times on this list about SDPs should be
> implementation detail... Also, such wrapper should be a basis where to
> start to develop that higher-level API...
>
> --
> "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
> monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
> Unix."
> – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> --
>
> Ken Smith
> Cell: 425-443-2359
> Email: smithkl42@gmail.com****
>
> Blog: http://blog.wouldbetheologian.com/****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 22:35:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC