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

Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:25:48 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mXUwjyPe=VxvovcKUutRjXy5iw9pH05+OTyh_-cHOR4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I've seen a hack to limit bandwidth use, which includes a b=AS:
inclusion in the m= line.

Silvia.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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]
>> 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]
>> 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 Wednesday, 19 June 2013 02:26:36 UTC

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