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 11:41:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh3RJkg=O8nrbknsjOsRBnT0FycD1jrxnqFqSztDUfg+Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frédéric Luart <frederic.luart@apizee.com>
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
User requested min&max bandwidth usage (
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/yPc0DDW-4Fs)
El 19/06/2013 10:28, "Frédéric Luart" <frederic.luart@apizee.com> escribió:

> We have this possibilities for now on our API concerning SDP :
>
> - Set Opus as preferred codec
> - Use RTP instead of SRTP
>
> And we plan to add bandwidth limitation and codecs restriction.
>
> We also have the possibility to control media routing mode :
> http://www.apirtc.com/media-routing-optimisation/
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> Sent: mercredi 19 juin 2013 04:26
> To: piranna@gmail.com
> Cc: cowwoc; public-webrtc
> Subject: Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?
>
> 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 09:42:19 UTC

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