- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:58:04 -0400
- To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- CC: piranna@gmail.com, Frédéric Luart <frederic.luart@apizee.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <51C1C6FC.1000807@bbs.darktech.org>
That's fine and well but you've got to start somewhere. What's the
harm in collecting use-cases and building an API on top of SDP for now?
Even if you're right, it's hard to convince people to make such a large
leap at once. Let's see what this API ends up looking like, and we can
then revisit the idea of taking it to a higher level.
Long term, you will need to come up with a *concrete* proposal for
an API that works for signaling protocols that require Offer/Answer and
yet doesn't expose those details to end-users. Like I said, let's start
small and build up to these goals.
Gili
On 19/06/2013 10:50 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
> Vendors can use SDP with a JS libary on top of WebRTC, without forcing
> other users to deal with SDP or a JS API for dealing with SDP, and
> without forcing others to use the SDP O/A model (which is fully
> relevant since not all the media signaling protocols need O/A
> semantigs). But those are not the only issues with SDP. The mails I've
> referenced show many other limitations and constrains SDP usage forces.
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
> El 19/06/2013 16:45, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> escribió:
>
>
> Disregarding the whole section about replacing Offer/Answer
> since I believe it is out of scope for this discussion, are you
> asking for a Javascript API that interacts directly with WebRTC
> without having to pass through a blob/opaque-token? I agree the
> latter is not ideal, but at the end of the day what's the big
> deal? If vendors want SDP and end-users want a Javascript API,
> agreeing to a blob is a decent compromise.
>
> Gili
>
> On 19/06/2013 10:36 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>> Just this:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>
>> --
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>
>> El 19/06/2013 16:35, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@aliax.net
>> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> escribió:
>>
>> Please re-read again. Nobody in that thread is requesting an
>> API for managing an opaque string. ;)
>>
>> --
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>
>> El 19/06/2013 16:33, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> escribió:
>>
>>
>> So having read most of this discussion I'm a bit
>> puzzled. Aren't we proposing the same thing? I believe
>> we're both saying that vendors should be free to use
>> whatever format they want under the hood (SDP or
>> otherwise) but that users should be given a Javascript
>> API for querying and manipulating this opaque token. Did
>> I misunderstand?
>>
>> Gili
>>
>> On 19/06/2013 10:12 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>
>>> Offer / Answer.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>>
>>> El 19/06/2013 16:11, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>>> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> escribió:
>>>
>>> On 19/06/2013 9:42 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013/6/19 cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>>> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>>:
>>>
>>> Honestly, I think this is the wrong
>>> approach/workaround.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you propose instead?
>>>
>>>
>>> This:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07880.html
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07896.html
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07899.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> With respect to
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>> what does O/A stand for?
>>>
>>> Gili
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 14:58:44 UTC